Even In Connecticut, Striking Workers Have Hurdles

Remember that this is currently a "blue state" with a Democratic Governor:

Gov. Ned Lamont delivered his expected veto Tuesday of a vaguely written bill that was intended to provide up to $3 million in state aid to striking workers without explicitly saying so.

Lamont was also opposed to a more transparent effort to provide jobless benefits, but he made no mention in his veto message of the rejected bill’s intent and instead focused on its lack of statutory standards.

Without standards, Lamont wrote, “there is a risk of inefficiency, mismanagement and lack of transparency in their intended allocation.”

The veto prompted an immediate backlash from labor leaders, including Ed Hawthorne, the president of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, which had made jobless benefits for strikers its top legislative priority.

“Gov. Lamont has failed to hear the voices of thousands of working people who urged him to stand with striking workers,” Hawthorne said. “The governor had a choice — stand with corporate CEOs or stand with working people. Unfortunately, he chose corporate CEOs.”

Lamont has sided with labor over business on several high-profile bills since taking office in 2019. He signed laws that rapidly increased the minimum wage from $10.10 in 2019 to $15.69 this year, created a nearly universal mandate for private employers to offer paid sick days and established a paid family and medical leave program.

In 2022, the Democratic governor also signed a labor bill banning “captive audience” meetings that unions say are used to thwart organizing. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Connecticut Business and Industry Association are challenging the constitutionality of the law as a preemption of federal labor law.

The bill vetoed Tuesday would have shifted unexpended funds held by the state comptroller’s office to a new “Connecticut families and workers account” and directed the comptroller to use it “for the purposes of assisting low-income workers.”

It was passed with little debate in either chamber. In the House, Republicans voted against it without challenging Democrats to publicly identify its intended beneficiaries.

Only in the Senate was its purpose acknowledged during the debate.

I find the fact that legislators were complaining about the vagueness of the legislation without offering amendments to give it more definition highly suspicious.