While Connecticut Democrats flocked to the Pratt & Whitney picket line for photo ops and soundbites, this wasn’t just about showing support — it was about taking sides.
Some were there to push legislation that would force employers to fund the very strikes being waged against them. Others simply showed up to play cheerleader. Either way, the line between governing and organizing isn’t just blurred, but erased.
Under a proposal moving through the legislature, workers could start collecting unemployment benefits after just two weeks on strike — turning the unemployment system into a weapon against employers in private labor disputes.
On May 9, at the East Hartford picket line, Sen. Julie Kushner (D-Danbury) didn’t just show up with a megaphone and a few catchy chants — she used the moment to rally support for paying striking workers.
Standing alongside Sen. Matt Lesser (D-Middletown) and Rep. Nick Gauthier (D–Waterford), and Sen. MD Rahman (D-Manchester), Sen. Kushner made it crystal clear where her priorities lie — not in brokering solutions, but in prolonging standoffs.
“We’ve been fighting for Senate Bill 8,” she told the crowd, referring to her legislation. She framed it to protect workers — but in reality, it’s designed to help unions hold the line longer by forcing employers to bankroll the strikes being waged against them.
Describing the bill as a response to a supposedly broken federal labor system, she even falsely claiming that “we don’t even have a Federal Labor Board” — using that to justify why Connecticut needs to “do everything” to support strikers, including paying them not to work.
What she didn’t mention is that the workers are already receiving strike benefits as evidenced by a Facebook post instructing the strikers to submit a W-9 form to start collecting payments in week three.
Yet, if the bill passes, unemployment insurance will transform from a system designed to help people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own — into a financial backstop for union walkouts. Indeed, companies like Pratt & Whitney won’t just be forced to bargain with union leadership, but they’ll be expected to bankroll the strikes against them, essentially paying for the same strike twice.
Sen. Kushner backed a similar measure last year during the final hours of the legislative session, when the Senate rushed through a last-minute bill that would have provided a multi-million-dollar slush fund managed by the State Comptroller’s office to be shelled out to striking workers.
The legislature passed the bill last year, but it was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Ned Lamont — a point Sen. Kushner made sure to drive home without actually naming him. “We know who vetoed that bill,” she told striking workers at Pratt & Whitney, before adding, “if he hadn’t vetoed it, we wouldn’t be out here today.”
Pointing to her almost half a century as a United Auto Workers (UAW) member, she assured the crowd that she stands with the workers “in solidarity” and told them they “gotta tell” their state reps and senators to pass her bill and promised she “would get it done with [their] support.”
Not to be outdone, Sen. Lesser turned the picket line into a campaign rally of his own.
He declared that the machinists “built this state” and labeled one of Connecticut’s top employers “greedy” for not giving in to union demands. Echoing Sen. Kushner, — he told the crowd, “We have your back… until the end.” (This is a shocking statement from an incumbent who’s now publicly siding with workers in a campaign to force one of Connecticut’s largest private employers to cave to union demands.)
In Sen. Lesser’s world, if a company resists union pressure, it’s greedy. If workers walk off the job, it’s courageous. And if the strike drags on, that’s what S.B. 8 is for — because thanks to the two Senators, Connecticut may soon be cutting unemployment checks to people who choose not to work.
Not every member of the General Assembly grabbed a megaphone, but plenty took to social media to broadcast their allegiance. Statements of solidarity poured in from lawmakers eager to align themselves with the strikers
Sen. Jan Hochadel (D-Meriden) posted “Today I stood strong in Middletown with the Pratt & Whitney strikers, this fight is about job security, fair wages, healthcare, and basic respect. The weather was perfect, and I was proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Senator Richard Blumenthal in support of these workers.”
In a late night video, Sen. Saud Anwar (D-South Windsor) warned that workers were running out of savings and losing healthcare coverage, framing the strike in stark moral terms. “This has reached a point where everybody has used up all of their savings… My fear is, Pratt — the profits you’re making, are they really worth it?” he asked. He accused the company of deliberately withholding fairness: “You are allowing this to happen to them just because they’re asking just for job security. That’s all they’re asking for — job security and just fairness and kindness.”
But perhaps the most jarring intervention came from Attorney General (AG) William Tong. In an Instagram post, AG Tong posed holding an “IAM on Strike” sign with a caption praising the machinists as the “backbone of Connecticut’s economy.” That may play well with organized labor, but it’s an odd move for the state’s top legal officer. The attorney general’s role is to uphold the law — not to wade into private-sector labor disputes or publicly pick sides in contract negotiations where the state has no legal stake.
Also joining the political circus were members of the state’s federal congressional delegation. U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who delivered a speech heavy on union talking points, told workers they were fighting not just for themselves but for “working men and women all around the United States.”
He warned Pratt & Whitney that hiring contract workers would be a “perilous” mistake and claimed the company had an “obligation” to pay more, citing RTX’s (Pratt’s parent company) latest earnings. Sen. Blumenthal even used the strike to pitch federal legislation — the PRO Act — that would impose steeper penalties on companies accused of unfair labor practices.
“You better get them back to work as quickly as possible,” he said, “but fairly and decently with adequate pay, good pensions, and job security.”
Adding to the political pressure campaign was a longtime ally of organized labor who made no secret of her personal debt to the union crowd.
“You have stood with me so that I can hold the position that I have,” said U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), openly crediting union support for her political survival. In return, she promised to stand “tall” with the strikers and apply pressure until management was forced to deliver a contract that met their demands — one she said was necessary for their “economic security.”
The message was clear: if you’re an employer in Connecticut, don’t expect your elected officials to stay neutral — they’ve already picked a side.
Roughly 3,000 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) walked off the job at Pratt & Whitney on May 5, marking the company’s first strike since 2001.
The union rejected a three-year contract that included annual raises of 4%, 3.5%, and 3%, a $5,000 ratification bonus, a boost in the pension multiplier, and a transition to an enhanced 401(k)-style retirement plan after 2027. The offer also maintained full healthcare coverage, improved vacation time, increased promotional pay bumps, and preserved all existing job security protections under Letters 20 and 22 — longstanding agreements that safeguard key union-represented work in Connecticut.
Union leaders claimed the proposal didn’t go far enough and accused the company of negotiating in bad faith.
Meanwhile, Pratt & Whitney defended the deal as more than fair and pointed to over $550 million in recent investments across its Connecticut operations. The company also pushed back on outsourcing claims, insisting it has no plans to move jobs out of state, and noted that contingency plans are in place to keep operations running during the strike.
Somewhere along the way, Connecticut’s leaders forgot that their job is to govern — not to organize strikes, impose union demands on private businesses, or rewrite labor law to rig the game. The unemployment system was never meant to bankroll walkouts. But in Connecticut, the political class isn’t even pretending to be neutral anymore.
