My name is Frank Ricci, and I serve as a Fellow at Yankee Institute — the eyes, ears and voice of hardworking people who want a prosperous Connecticut. Our common sense solutions drive positive legislative results to strengthen our communities and build a vibrant, hopeful future.
Yankee Institute opposes this bill because it would extend collective bargaining rights to temporary state employees, and appears to be nothing more than a maneuver by unions to increase their dues collection. By attempting to unionize temporary employees, including casual, seasonal, and per diem employees, the bill raises concerns about its true intentions and potential negative consequences.
This move seems particularly questionable when considering the nature of temporary positions, such as summer jobs, which are characterized by their limited duration. Unionizing such roles may not align with the traditional objectives of collective bargaining, which primarily focuses on protecting long-term employees and ensuring fair labor practices.
Moreover, the insertion of unions into the realm of temporary employment raises the specter of undue financial burdens on these employees. Forcing temporary workers to pay union dues, which may not necessarily provide meaningful benefits for the short duration of their employment, could be viewed as an unfair imposition. If the cost of hiring temporary employees increases as a result of this change, then many young or inexperienced workers may also miss out on opportunities if the state decreases the total number of temporary positions available in response.
It is essential to question whether this move serves the best interests of these temporary employees or if it is primarily driven by a desire for increased union revenue.
Additionally, the bill’s impact on the ease of managing and removing problematic temporary employees cannot be ignored. Unions often add layers of unnecessary complexity to employment relationships, making it more challenging for employers to address performance issues or terminate employment when necessary. This could hinder the efficient functioning of temporary positions, where flexibility and swift decision-making are crucial to organizational success.
One must also consider the potential repercussions for taxpayers. The bill, if enacted, may lead to increased labor costs and administrative costs associated with the collective bargaining process, expenses that ultimately fall on the shoulders of taxpayers. This raises questions about the responsible allocation of public funds, especially when considering that temporary employees may not be in their positions long enough to experience substantial benefits from union representation.
As former U.S. President Ronald Reagan once said, “The most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” This reminds us that well-intentioned actions by the government, such as extending collective bargaining rights, can have unintended and potentially detrimental consequences.
Furthermore, while employees have a right not to join a union. These rights, ensured by the U.S. Supreme Court under the Janus v. AFSCME case, are meaningless if the employee isn’t overtly educated about the right. In Connecticut, the state does not affirmably notify employees that they have the right not to sign a union membership card.
S.B. No. 1486 appears to be a questionable attempt to expand union influence into the realm of temporary employment, with potential negative consequences for both employees and taxpayers. It is crucial to carefully examine the motivations behind such legislation and assess its potential impacts on the workforce and public finances.
Yankee Institute encourages the Labor and Public Employees Committee to oppose S.B. 1486.
