Tension between Connecticut’s legislative and executive branches surfaced during a public hearing of the Labor and Public Employees Committee held on March 10, as a bill to provide unemployment benefits to striking workers, which Gov. Ned Lamont has vetoed twice, was heard once again.
SB 440 would allow workers who have been on strike for at least 14 days to collect unemployment benefits. Should the bill pass as currently written, that provision would go into effect on December 14, 2027.
In past years, the bill has drawn support largely from unions and other labor and workers’ rights groups who argue it helps level the playing field for workers in a state where existing conditions largely favor businesses in labor disputes. Those who oppose the bill generally argue it allows the state to interfere in private disputes between workers and businesses, to the benefit of workers.
The legislature has several times before passed a similar bill, but it has been opposed by Gov. Ned Lamont. Last June, Lamont vetoed a standalone bill passed by the legislature that also would have allowed workers striking for at least 14 days to collect unemployment benefits.
In 2024, another bill passed just before the legislative session expired drew outrage from Republicans who called it “trickery” because it would have created a $3 million non-lapsing fund to be distributed by Comptroller Sean Scanlon to assist low-income workers but made no mention of striking workers or labor disputes. Lamont called the bill “too cute by half” and ultimately vetoed it.
In 2022, a similar bill to SB 440 was introduced and passed the Senate but died on the House of Representatives’ calendar.
During Tuesday’s public hearing, many of the same arguments for and against the bill were rehashed, but legislators also expressed concern about SB 440’s fate should it cross the governor’s desk.
Senate Democratic leaders Martin Looney, D-New Haven, and Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, testified jointly in favor of the bill. Looney said the bill is a matter of “equity” and “fairness” and creates a “way of providing reasonable balance” when strikes occur because “employers have been so intransigent that talks break down.” Looney said employers have more economic resources on their side.
Duff added that consolidation of companies has weakened the voices of employees and made benefits for striking workers more important than ever.
Legislators on the Labor Committee expressed concern about the need for the bill in light of changing attitudes towards labor in Washington, and also worried that, should the bill pass again, Lamont would simply veto it.
Committee co-chair Sen. Julie Kushner, D-Danbury, asked Looney to comment on the importance of the bill in the wake of President Donald Trump’s removal of the chair of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in January 2025, leaving the board without the ability to meet a quorum and hold meetings to settle labor disputes for nearly a year before the U.S. Senate appointed new members.
Kushner said the NLRB wasn’t currently an “avenue to resolve disputes,” putting more pressure on workers to enter into negotiations. Looney agreed, saying the “NLRB is not in a posture of friendliness to workers right now” and saying the situation created a “greater imperative” for passing SB 440.
Rep. Steve Weir, R-Glastonbury, noted that the legislature has extensively debated the bill previously and asked Looney what he was hearing from the executive branch about the possibility of the bill passing this year.
Looney said he did not want to handicap “any bill’s ultimate success at this point in the process” and was willing to compromise on particulars in the bill, noting several other states have passed different measures to the same effect.
Rep. Nick Gauthier, D-Waterford, asked if there was a particular message the legislature needed to communicate to sway Lamont. Looney replied that he believed legislators needed “to continue making arguments about the equity inherent in this bill.”
Testimony in favor of the bill came largely from unions, though some did oppose the bill.
Testimony from Ed Hawthorne, the president of Connecticut AFL-CIO, echoed arguments made by Looney and past union support for the bill, claiming it would create a more level playing field for workers.
“Connecticut can create a more level playing field between workers and wealthy corporations by extending access to unemployment insurance (UI) to striking workers. The UI program was designed to support workers, alleviate individual hardship, and protect the economy. Making striking workers eligible for UI aligns with the program’s intent and creates benefits that far outweigh its negligible costs.” Hawthorne stated in written testimony.
Unions representing food and commercial workers, teachers, state and municipal employees, and communications workers, supported the bill on similar grounds.
But unions in the construction industry submitted testimony opposing the bill.
The Mechanical Contractors Association of Connecticut, Inc., an association of trade union mechanical contractors, opposed the bill on the grounds that it could have “significant unintended consequences, including adverse effects on the solvency of the state’s Unemployment Trust Fund, cause delays on construction projects, and increase costs for municipalities and the state.”
The Connecticut Chapter of The Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association and the Connecticut Construction Industries Association, Inc. also opposed the bill on similar grounds.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
