Gov. Ned Lamont followed through this week on a promise that sent shockwaves through his party: he vetoed S.B. 8, a bill that would have offered unemployment benefits to workers who strike after two weeks.
In a two-page veto message, Gov. Lamont wrote, “I must respectfully decline to sign this bill into law.” He correctly noted that the state’s Unemployment Trust Fund exists to support individuals “who are out of work through no fault of their own,” and warned that “its long-term sustainability is critical.” Extending benefits to individuals “actively participating in labor disputes — even after a period of time — alters the fundamental purpose of the program.”
Cue the hysterics.
Rep. Nick Gauthier (D-Waterford), a freshman lawmaker and former union organizer, called the governor’s decision “utterly unacceptable” in a June 23 Facebook post — not just for vetoing S.B. 8, but as part of what he described as a pattern of siding with “the assaulters” of union rights.
He argued Gov. Lamont should have signed the bill simply because “the legislature is a co-equal branch of government” and because lawmakers “passed our legislation after deep thought and consideration.”
Rep. Gauthier even compared the governor vetoing a housing bill to “kicking us in the teeth” during what he calls a housing crisis. “The working class should be infuriated with those results, as am I,” he wrote, as if the governor had personally thrown his favorite Working Families Party t-shirt in the trash.
Not to be outdone, state Sen. Julie Kushner (D-Danbury), the Senate chair of the Labor Committee and a longtime union organizer, issued a statement that sounded less like a policy disagreement and more like a speech at a union rally.
“The governor is on the wrong side on this one,” she declared, insisting that most strikes happen when workers “are fighting to protect their health and pension benefits or fighting egregious working conditions.”
According to Sen. Kushner, the bill wouldn’t just help workers on the picket line — it would lift standards across “every business in Connecticut” and benefit “our friends and neighbors.”
She dismissed Gov. Lamont’s concern that S.B. 8 would tip the balance in labor disputes, arguing that “corporate America has lobbied successfully to impose limitations on workers’ rights — putting their collective thumb on the scales in favor of business.”
But when Democrats “overwhelmingly elected to represent the people of this state” passed the bill, she said, Gov. Lamont “sides with businesses,” joining “the long list of politicians, past and present, who side with corporate executives.”
Sen. Kushner also took shots at Pratt & Whitney, which according to her pressured the governor to veto the bill.
“Did the governor get a written commitment, or even a handshake, from Pratt to create more jobs or even guarantee that the jobs we have will stay in Connecticut?” she asked. “The only written guarantees from Pratt are in the union contract the workers fought to secure.”
She closed by thanking union members for “working so hard to get this bill passed,” and vowed to bring it back — “whether that’s next year or when we elect a governor who has pledged to support workers on this critical priority.”
Signaling that the fight isn’t over, Senate President Martin Looney (D-New Haven), in a June 22 interview on WTNH’s This Week in Connecticut, told news anchor Dennis House that Democrats are already considering tweaks to get a revised bill past Gov. Lamont next year.
“I’d certainly be willing to support those, if we could get the governor’s support on those, which would be starting the benefit after four weeks instead of two, and having a limited number of weeks instead of having it be open-ended,” Sen. Looney said. Despite the veto, he insisted, “I certainly would like us to adopt a striking workers bill at some point.”,
Even Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) couldn’t help but pile on.
In an official statement, he warned that labor rights were under assault from the Trump administration, urging that Connecticut must lead the resistance: “Now, more than ever, states must stand up for workers’ rights,” he declared.
The Senate majority leader also took to Facebook, writing, “It’s a bad case of the Mondays for working families in the state,” adding, “The governor vetoed two bills today. One was Senate Bill 8, that provided unemployment benefits for striking workers only after a few weeks — which is very rare. It provides a little more equal footing for workers in negotiations who do not receive compensation while their bosses still receive full pay.”
CT AFL-CIO President Ed Hawthorne turned melodrama into a social media graphic reading, “This veto sends a clear message: Gov. Lamont is more concerned with protecting corporate profits than supporting the working people who make our economy run.” He added that “first-term Ned” — the guy who supported paid family leave and minimum wage hikes — would be “ashamed” of second-term Ned. The heartbreak was palpable.
But Gov. Lamont, to his credit, didn’t budge. His veto letter noted that Connecticut’s unemployment system was never designed to fund labor strikes and warned that enacting the bill would increase the state’s liability while undermining the delicate balance between labor and management. In other words: the governor actually governed.
And for the unions now crying betrayal? Let’s review just how “anti-worker” Gov. Lamont has been.
Gov. Lamont has been so “anti-worker,” he has agreed to raises for public-sector unions throughout his tenure. Since taking office in 2019, he has delivered for organized labor, with state employee unions securing a cumulative 33% increase in wages and step raises through 2025.
Speaking at AFSCME Council 4’s Biennial Conference in April, the governor made his loyalty crystal clear stating, “Every year that I’ve been here you’ve gotten a raise, and every year I’m here, you’re going to get a raise.”
And it wasn’t just raises. Gov. Lamont also signed legislation in 2021 that gave public-sector unions sweeping new rights to access, influence, and pressure employees at taxpayer-funded workplaces. The law requires state and local employers — including towns and school boards — to turn over detailed employee information, allow union reps into new employee orientations, and grant them access to government buildings to meet with workers. In reality, it gives unions free rein to harass new hires before they’ve even finished filling out HR paperwork.
The bill also made it easier for unions to collect dues and harder for employees to say no.
Employers are required to accept a union’s word that it has authorization to deduct dues from a worker’s paycheck — no documentation required. And if an employee wants to stop or change those deductions, they can’t go through their employer; they have to go through the union itself.
The law even bans public employers from saying or doing anything that might discourage union membership — even casually suggesting that a worker opt out could now be considered a violation of labor law. The governor signed this without hesitation.
Additionally, he passed laws expanding prevailing wage rules, union card check procedures, and “captive audience” restrictions.
His administration backed the creation of new bargaining units for legislative staff, graduate workers, and quasi-public agency employees. He even stood with the unions to pass paid family leave and raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
But in Connecticut, apparently, doing everything the unions ask 99 times out of 100 still isn’t enough — you’re either 100% obedient, or you’re the enemy. Gov. Lamont gave them billions in raises, handed them every organizing tool they asked for, and still got accused of siding with ICE and “corporate thugs” because he had the audacity to say no to one bill that would have turned the unemployment system into a strike fund.
So now the same unions he has spent years appeasing are throwing a tantrum, and the lawmakers they back are screaming about “assaults” on workers’ rights. Yet only New York, New Jersey, and Washington have a similar ‘pay for striking workers’ policy; meanwhile, the progressive-leaning California found the concept so reckless it even balked. In truth, the bill would force employers to pay for the disruption caused by strikes against their own business. Companies already struggling with labor costs and economic uncertainty would be stuck funding work stoppages — essentially rewarding unions for walking off the job and giving them a financial weapon to drag out negotiations.
Gov. Lamont is learning the hard way that with organized labor, it’s not “What have you done for me lately?” — it’s “What are you doing for me right now?”
