On Friday (May 3) the House pulled a bait-and-switch maneuver, removing all content from a bill titled “An Act Concerning Expenditures of the General Fund,” and sneaking in provisions enabling striking workers to qualify for unemployment benefits — which has been championed by big labor this year.
The deception doesn’t cease there, the bill’s proponent, Rep. Manny Sanchez (D-New Britain), went so far as to completely overhaul its title to “An Act Establishing the Stabilization Support and ARPA Replacement Fund.” However, conspicuously absent were any explicit mentions of striking workers being eligible for unemployment benefits.
The amended bill allocates $3 million of unspent funds from the “unexpended balance of funds appropriated to State Comptroller — Fringe Benefits, for State employees Health Service Costs” to create a new account dubbed the “Connecticut families and workers account.” Additionally, it mandates the Comptroller to devise a plan on how to spend the funds to support low-income workers.
The original bill appears to have been a “dummy” bill — legislation with no actual content and voted out of committee to be used as a placeholder for last-minute legislation. Its sole provision mandated the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) to review appropriations from the General Fund in the state budget for the biennium culminating on June 30, 2025. OFA was charged with identifying areas of spending where appropriations have increased by ten percent or more compared to the preceding biennium (or two-year period).
Displaying a lack of transparency, Rep. Sanchez devoted just one minute to discussing the amendment, conveniently omitting any mention of striking workers and offering zero details on the “Connecticut families and workers account.” Instead, he focused predominantly on the status of the unspent funds and emphasized the Comptroller’s broad discretion in developing the disbursement criteria.
The bill passed with minimal debate 90-59.
Despite the legislature having a bill already in place that offers unemployment benefits for these workers — which had been greenlit by the Labor and Public Employees Committee vote on March 7 — lawmakers opted for underhanded maneuvers. The question arises: Why did they resort to covert methods to push forward one of big labor’s top agenda items this year?
It wasn’t until Saturday when CT Mirror revealed that the bill would indeed be used to pay workers choosing to strike. According to their report, the amendment was proposed as “an attempt to resolve a standoff by the Connecticut AFL-CIO and Gov. Ned Lamont.
Gov. Lamont has publicly expressed his reluctance to expanding this benefit to include striking workers. It remains uncertain whether he would endorse this initiative, as he contends that “unemployment is really oriented towards folks who, through no fault of their own were laid off due to a recession,” stating, “I think that’s what the focus of the unemployment benefits ought to be.”
Expressing his gratitude for including paying striking workers, Ed Hawthorne, Connecticut AFL-CIO President, emailed a statement to CT Mirror stating, “The labor movement is deeply grateful to Speaker Ritter and Comptroller Scanlon for working to establish a workers assistance fund,” adding, “This will provide much needed support for working people, and we look forward to the Senate passing this bill in the coming days.”
Assuming the funds being used come from taxpayers, funneling tax dollars to pay workers choosing to go on strike is problematic for several reasons.
Strikes are a fundamental tool for workers to negotiate better wages, benefits, and working conditions. If the government steps in to pay striking workers, it undermines the effectiveness of collective bargaining between employers and employees.
Moreover, tax dollars are intended to be used for public services and infrastructure, not to subsidize private labor disputes. Using public funds in this way could divert resources away from essential services such as education, municipal aid and infrastructure projects.
Additionally, paying striking workers with tax dollars could create a dependency on government support during labor disputes. This could disincentivize workers and employers from reaching mutually beneficial agreements through negotiation and compromise.
Using taxpayers’ money to pay striking workers isn’t merely a financial matter, it’s also seen as politically motivated, particularly during an election year. The relationship between politicians and unions is well-known, and during election cycles, the allure of union support becomes even more enticing.
By using public money in labor disputes, politicians risk playing favorites and undermining fairness. It also suggests that political gains may outweigh the interests of workers and employers, with taxpayers footing the bill.
