Connecticut lawmakers will return to Hartford on February 4 for the state’s so-called short session — a three-month legislative sprint intended primarily for technical fixes and budget adjustments.
In practice, short sessions have increasingly become vehicles for moving major policy changes quickly, often with limited public scrutiny. The compressed calendar is not incidental; it reduces opportunities for hearings, debate, and sustained attention.
That context matters as lawmakers begin reviewing proposals for the 2026 session, particularly those already being advanced by organized labor.
The Connecticut AFL-CIO has published its legislative priorities, outlining a broad agenda it hopes lawmakers will advance during the abbreviated session. While framed as worker-focused reforms, the proposals would have wide-ranging implications for costs, competitiveness, and the balance of authority between the state, employers, and local governments.
Turning AI Adoption into a Labor Negotiation
One of the top priorities is regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace by requiring employer consultation with unions before adopting new technologies. In effect, this would turn routine business decisions — things companies do to save time, cut costs, or reduce errors — into matters subject to labor negotiation.
While concerns about worker displacement are legitimate, embedding technology decisions into collective bargaining adds uncertainty and delay to innovation. For employers weighing where to invest or expand, that uncertainty can be decisive. States that make modernization more difficult tend to see capital and job growth move elsewhere.
Retail Innovation in the Crosshairs
The agenda also calls for regulating self-checkout lanes in retail settings, “to ensure that technology is used in ways that help, not harm shoppers and workers.” Supporters argue this protects workers and consumers. Critics note that self-checkout exists largely because customers use it and businesses rely on it to manage costs.
Regulating retail technology does not eliminate economic pressures; it redistributes them. Slower checkout, higher labor costs, and reduced flexibility ultimately show up as higher prices or fewer store locations, particularly in low-margin communities.
Weakening Fiscal Guardrails
Perhaps the most consequential proposal is the call to weaken Connecticut’s fiscal guardrails, which labor leaders describe as “restrictive roadblocks.” Those guardrails are widely credited with ending years of structural deficits by preventing lawmakers from treating temporary revenue spikes as permanent money.
Weakening them would reopen the door to higher spending commitments funded by short-term surpluses — a pattern that historically led to tax increases when revenues inevitably cooled. Whether framed as “equity” or investment, the underlying math remains the same.
Raising Costs for Employers
Several proposals would directly increase the cost of hiring and expansion. One would deny tax credits or abatements to companies whose executives earn more than one hundred times the average worker pay. Another would impose a fee on so-called low-wage employers, functioning as a payroll tax concentrated in retail, hospitality, home care, and similar sectors.
These costs are rarely absorbed by employers alone. They tend to result in higher prices, reduced hours, fewer entry-level jobs, or accelerated automation — outcomes that disproportionately affect lower-income workers.
The message to employers is clear: incentives here come with political strings attached — and you’re probably better off growing somewhere else.
Turning Local Bargaining Into State Mandates
A significant portion of the agenda targets local governments. Issues traditionally negotiated at the municipal level would instead be mandated statewide, requiring cities and towns to provide specific benefits or staffing arrangements regardless of local budget conditions.
Proposals include statewide pension requirements for police and firefighters; paraeducator pay and hiring would be pulled out of local negotiations entirely, with state mandated wages, benefits, training, and banning districts from outsourcing recruitment; and transit agencies would be ordered to install bus barriers and create permanent “labor-management workplace violence training and prevention committees.” While each proposal may be defensible on its own merits, embedding them in state law removes local flexibility and shifts costs to property taxpayers.
The Connecticut Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has repeatedly identified unfunded state mandates as a key factor contributing to long-term fiscal pressure on municipalities.
Automatic Approval and Limited Reform
Other proposals would require the General Assembly to automatically approve collective bargaining agreements, arbitration awards, and related memoranda once submitted. While presented as procedural efficiency, automatic approval would eliminate legislative scrutiny of long-term cost commitments.
At the same time, the agenda seeks to wall off reforms to collective bargaining rules, binding arbitration, prevailing wage laws, project labor agreements, and apprenticeship ratios. These rules don’t just “protect workers.” These policies significantly influence construction costs and municipal leverage. Declaring reform off-limits ensures costs remain high while accountability remains limited.
Similar logic extends to higher education, where proposed funding formulas would lock in appropriations regardless of enrollment or performance, and to state contracting rules that restrict competitive bidding in favor of continuity.
Then come “worker retention” rules in state contracting, meant to keep worksites unionized even when contractors change. Competitive bidding is supposed to protect taxpayers. These rules do the opposite, locking in higher-cost vendors while competition disappears.
Once spending becomes automatic and reform is forbidden, the only real debate left is how much more taxpayers are expected to swallow next year.
Beyond Labor Policy
The agenda extends well beyond workplace issues, touching on education policy, election law, and healthcare. The AFL-CIO even admits as much, saying it “will stand ready to support allies” on a wide range of issues that have nothing to do with collective bargaining.
Opposition to charter schools and scholarship programs limits options for families seeking alternatives to underperforming schools. Support for expanded absentee voting by mail represents a major change in election administration. Proposals for a state-run public health insurance option would expand a model, the state’s Partnership Plan, that already struggles to balance costs.
None of these issues are minor. None are technical. And none are well suited to a short session designed to move quickly.
Why the Short Session Matters
The danger is not that these proposals exist; every interest group advocates for its priorities. The danger is that the short session creates a procedural environment where sweeping changes can be enacted before their full costs are understood.
The 2026 session may be brief. The consequences of the policies under consideration would last for decades, shaping Connecticut’s economy, local governance, and tax burden long after the session ends.
For lawmakers, the challenge is not choosing sides. It is ensuring that decisions with long-term consequences receive the scrutiny, debate, and transparency they deserve — regardless of who is asking.
