After years of trying — and failing — to get taxpayers and businesses to bankroll union strikes, AFL-CIO President Ed Hawthorne is embracing a different approach to support striking workers without forcing others to foot the bill.
More than 120 workers from the Omni New Haven Hotel walked off the job on Thursday (Sept. 12), demanding fair wages and relief from overwhelming workloads created by staffing cuts due to the pandemic. But unlike previous union tactics that sought to siphon taxpayer funds to support labor disputes, Hawthorne is now asking for donations to the union’s Strike & Hardship Fund — a departure from an earlier, more controversial push for public and business-backed strike support.
The striking Omni employees, all members of UNITE HERE Local 217, have been at a standstill in negotiations with Omni management after their contract expired nearly six months ago. While the strike’s outcome remains uncertain, Hawthorne’s shift toward union-funded support is a notable development.
In a Sept. 12 email, Hawthorne outlined two ways to support the striking workers in New Haven: joining the picket line “in solidarity” with their “union siblings” or donating to a “Strike and Hardship Fund.” To the latter, he emphasized, “Workers are prepared to do whatever it takes to win a good contract, but we need to have their back,” adding, “Please contribute to their hardship fund as they fight for a better future.”
Earlier this year, the Connecticut General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employee Committee pushed a piece of legislation that would have forced businesses to fund labor strikes happening right on their own turf. The bill proposed allowing workers to collect unemployment benefits just two weeks after voluntarily walking off the job. Under current state law, unemployment benefits are rightly reserved for those who lose their jobs “through no fault of their own,” which explicitly excludes striking workers. However, it failed to pass.
What made the bill particularly was that unemployment benefits would have been funded through taxes paid by employers. Put another way, if the measure succeeded, businesses would be subsidizing the very strikes disrupting their own operations.
This proposal sparked outrage, as it would have likely led to more frequent and prolonged strikes, incentivizing labor actions with no clear financial consequences for workers or unions. After all, if strikers could collect unemployment checks paid by their employer’s own taxes, they’d have far less incentive to return to the bargaining table quickly.
Mary Jane Massimino, a shop steward for the United Commercial Food Workers (UCFW) and participant in the 11-day Stop & Shop strike in 2019, highlighted this issue in written testimony to the committee on an identical bill in 2022.
“Had we had unemployment benefits to rely on during the 2019 strike, we might have been able to stay out longer,” Massimino wrote.
Frustrated by their failure to pass legislation earlier in the session, unions resorted to a questionable maneuver during the final days of the 2023 session, using their political influence to get lawmakers to push through the bill.
In May, the House gutted a bill originally titled “An Act Concerning Expenditures of the General Fund” and snuck in language establishing a $3 million fund, deceptively named the “Connecticut Families and Workers Account,” supposedly intended to “assist low-income workers.”
However, it was soon revealed that the account’s real purpose was to financially support workers who had walked off the job. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Manny Sanchez (D-New Britain), even went as far as renaming it “An Act Establishing the Stabilization Support and ARPA Replacement Fund,” conveniently omitting any mention of strikes or their funding from the title or provisions. This bait-and-switch tactic allowed one of big labor’s top priorities to move forward with little debate or transparency.
While the bill managed to pass both the House and Senate, it was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Ned Lamont.
Hawthorne’s recent pivot toward union-funded strike support represents a more responsible and ethical path forward. By urging unions to fund their own strikes through
hardship funds, rather than tapping into taxpayer or employer-backed unemployment benefits, respects both workers’ rights and public resources.
Unions collect dues from their members specifically for times like these, providing financial support during labor disputes. Expecting businesses or the public to shoulder that burden not only undermines the principles of collective bargaining but also puts undue pressure on state resources that should be focused on critical services like education, infrastructure and public health.
Union funded strikes are step toward a more self-reliant labor movement, one that no longer looks to the state or businesses to fund its private disputes. In the long run, this shift could set a precedent for future strikes, ensuring that labor disputes remain between workers and their employers, rather than bringing the public or businesses into their disputes.
If unions like UNITE HERE Local 217 continue to embrace this model of funding their own strikes, they’ll not only preserve the integrity of collective bargaining but also protect the state’s unemployment system and spare businesses from further financial strain in an already high-cost state.
This approach is a win for both the labor movement and the taxpayers, offering a more equitable and financially responsible way forward for labor disputes in the state.
It’s worth noting that Yankee Institute has long been vocal about its opposition to taxpayer-funded strikes. In a statement to Gov. Lamont on the recent veto, Yankee Institute President Carol Liebau wrote, “Governor Lamont should be commended for vetoing a bill that would have handed out taxpayer funds to striking workers.”
“Governor Lamont’s objections to the process are well-founded, as citizens have a right to be heard on legislation prior to its passage,” she said. “Not only is this bill wrong on process — it is bad policy, as well. Government should not be tipping the scales in labor negotiations between its citizens, and taxpayers should not be forced to pay striking workers.”
This sentiment underscores the broader issue — taxpayer money should not be used to tip the scales in private labor disputes. Whether through the state or through businesses, forcing one group to fund another’s strikes is not just unfair, it’s bad policy. Gov. Lamont’s veto, along with Hawthorne’s embracing union-backed strike funds, represents a positive step toward a fairer, more balanced approach to labor relations in Connecticut.
