During a May 21 press conference, Speaker of the House Matt Ritter (D-Hartford) admitted that Democrats are still trying to find a way to pay striking workers — even if it means working around the unemployment system altogether.
“There’s a way to do this,” Speaker Ritter told reporters. “I was here late last night with Senator Kushner and Representative Sanchez and Wilson, and there’s a way to do it that I think can get the governor there… it might look very different than originally proposed, so we’ll see. But there’s a chance.”
Rather than abandon the plan after veto threats from Gov. Ned Lamont, Speaker Ritter made it clear Democrats are brainstorming ideas to keep the concept alive.
“The bottom line is, what these workers are looking for is insurance against lost income,” Speaker Ritter said. “And it’s not unusual for workers to have insurance products… We have programs that help people with lost income… so there’s a way that government has addressed this problem before and there’s a way that government can address this problem again.”
He acknowledged it won’t be easy to accomplish, but emphasized his insistence, saying, “I think we can figure this out. I really, really do.”
Even the idea of reviving a separate strike fund — previously considered dead — isn’t entirely off the table. “We’re past that,” Speaker Ritter said. “I mean, don’t think we’re going to do that again, although someone last night said they didn’t mind the idea. That made me happy. But it’s only one person.”
Speaker Ritter openly admitted that Gov. Lamont still “doesn’t like any of the iterations to date,” and the governor hasn’t been directly involved. But that hasn’t stopped legislators from trying to “stretch your imagination” and “come with a different proposal.” “It gets tricky,” he added. “But we had a tough caucus yesterday… and I think we’re actually pretty close.”
There is currently a bill in the Senate which contains broad provisions aimed at “enhancing workers’ rights” — including a restructured eligibility rule for unemployment benefits during labor disputes. The bill is a priority for Senate leadership and already sits on the chamber’s calendar for a vote.
While it remains unclear whether the final version will tap unemployment insurance funds or establish a new funding mechanism, Speaker Ritter made clear that Democrats are actively looking for a way pass something. “You have preemption issues, and it’s complicated,” he said, but added, “I think we can figure this out. I really, really do.”
The goal of subsidizing strike activity raises serious questions about the role of government in private-sector labor disputes. Speaker Ritter attempted to downplay concerns by framing the idea as a form of “insurance against lost income,” comparing it to disability coverage or income protection plans. But unlike disability insurance, this would pay people for choosing to walk off the job — and would do so through state-run mechanisms, not privately funded premiums.
And while lawmakers haven’t clarified whether taxpayer dollars would be involved, that’s exactly what happened last year. In 2024, with time running out, House Democrats used a procedural sleight-of-hand to gut an unrelated appropriations bill and insert language that quietly funneled $3 million in unused fringe benefit funds into a new “Connecticut Families and Workers Account.”
The move was never clearly disclosed on the House floor — and only afterward did it come to light that the money was intended to support striking workers. Gov. Lamont ultimately vetoed the measure.
If this year’s bill follows the same playbook — hiding the real purpose until the eleventh hour — taxpayers may once again find themselves underwriting walkouts they didn’t sign up for.
Connecticut already ranks near the bottom in business friendliness and cost of living. The last thing the state needs is another policy signaling to employers that their labor relations may be subject to state interference — or worse, state-sponsored disruption.
If the Senate bill advances in the final days of session, the outcome will say less about protecting workers than about protecting political alliances. What’s being negotiated behind closed doors isn’t meaningful reform — it’s putting lipstick on a pig.
