Connecticut’s legislature is considering a bill that would allow striking workers to collect unemployment benefits, a move that could destabilize businesses and communities. Gov. Ned Lamont has a chance to protect jobs by rejecting — or, if necessary, vetoing — this proposal.
In testimony supporting the bill, Sen. Martin Looney (D-New Haven) recalled childhood memories of his father’s involvement in the 1979 strike at the Winchester Repeating Arms Company. He highlighted the financial strain of picket lines and meager union strike funds.
Several decades later, in 2006, Winchester shuttered its doors claiming “many efforts were made to improve profitability” but failed to do so. In short, Connecticut was an unaffordable state to conduct business. Its closure serves as a stark warning: well-intentioned labor policies can drive employers away, leaving lasting economic and social scars.
Winchester’s Rise and Fall
Winchester Repeating Arms Company was once a cornerstone of New Haven’s economy. At its peak during wartime, the factory employed an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 workers, producing iconic firearms that symbolized American ingenuity. Its Winchester Avenue plant sustained vibrant working-class neighborhoods, offering stable, well-paying jobs that supported families like that of Sen. Looney’s father.
Yet Sen. Looney’s nostalgic testimony omitted a critical truth: labor unrest, frequent strikes, and Connecticut’s high cost of doing business were key factors in Winchester’s decline. By 1979, the workforce had dwindled from 15,000 to 2,300. The strike that year slashed employment to 800. Rising costs and further labor disputes reduced the workforce to 500 by the 1990s and just 187 when the plant closed in 2006. Winchester’s departure wasn’t just a corporate decision — it was a symptom of policies that tipped the balance against economic stability.
The Ripple Effects of Departure
When Winchester left, it devastated New Haven. The once-thriving neighborhood around Winchester Avenue fell into decline. Abandoned buildings became hubs for crime, drugs, and fires, eroding the community’s social fabric. I experienced this firsthand as a city firefighter assigned to protect this very neighborhood.
While redevelopment has brought some biotech jobs, these roles are fewer, require specialized skills, and often exclude former Winchester workers. Yale University students and faculty now enjoy revitalized amenities along Winchester Avenue, but the broader neighborhood still grapples with poverty and neglect. Winchester’s exit shows how the loss of a single employer can unravel entire communities.
The Proposed Bill: Repeating Past Mistakes
The bill to provide unemployment benefits for striking workers risks repeating the errors that drove Winchester away. A 2022 Stop & Shop worker testified that similar legislation would have extended their 2019 strike by boosting employee “leverage.” This isn’t about fairness — it’s about manipulating the system to prolong labor disputes at the expense of businesses, taxpayers, and consumers.
Moreover, subsidizing strikes has far-reaching consequences, including:
- Higher Costs for Businesses: A company’s unemployment experience rating, which determines its tax contributions, would suffer if strikers collect benefits. This increases costs, which are passed on to state, municipal, and private projects, raising taxes and the price of goods.
- Incentive for Unrest: With no cap on union strike funds, workers could earn more on strike than at work, creating a blueprint for prolonged labor disputes.
- Union Accountability Dodged: Instead of using their own funds to support strikers—a core union responsibility—the AFL-CIO is pushing for legislation that shifts the burden to taxpayers and businesses.
By tipping the scales in favor of strikes, this bill undermines the delicate balance needed to bring employers and employees back to the bargaining table. It makes Connecticut less attractive to businesses seeking stability, threatening the state’s already fragile economic competitiveness.
A Path Forward: Learning from Winchester
Connecticut’s leaders must learn from Winchester’s story. Labor policies should balance workers’ rights with the need to retain employers. Subsidizing strikes may win short-term political points, but it risks long-term economic decline. Instead, the state should:
- Streamline regulations and reduce taxes to create a business-friendly environment.
- Invest in workforce development programs that equip residents for modern industries like biotech.
- Foster dialogue between unions and employers to resolve disputes without destabilizing work stoppages.
The scars of Winchester’s departure — unemployment, crime, and despair — still linger in New Haven’s struggling neighborhoods. Before passing a bill that could drive more employers away, Connecticut’s legislature must heed Winchester’s lesson. Even California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a similar bill in 2023 because he recognized that subsidizing strikes would cripple businesses and deter investment. Connecticut should follow this example: good intentions won’t rebuild communities or restore jobs. Only thoughtful, balanced policies can.
