More than 100 people signed up to testify before a legislative committee in Hartford on Thursday, the majority speaking in support of two bills that would extend unemployment insurance benefits to some striking workers.
“It’s so important for workers to be able to strike so we are able to hold corporations accountable for our existing agreements and protect our futures,” Kylie McCarthy, a shop steward for the International Association of Machinists Union Local 700 at Pratt & Whitney in Middletown, told members of the General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee.
“Unemployment benefits being available to striking workers will ensure financial hardship will not impede workers’ ability to get a fair contract when a company has not bargained in good faith,” McCarthy said.
Juliette Sabo, a Stop & Shop employee of more than 40 years and a shop steward for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 919, recalled her experience during a 2019 strike.
“Looking back, I think that if we could have received unemployment insurance during our strike, it would have helped us hold on longer to get a better deal, or would have incentivized Stop & Shop to come to the table with a better deal from the beginning and avoid the strike altogether,” Sabo said.
The proposed legislation would extend unemployment insurance benefits to striking workers once a strike enters its third week. Ed Hawthorne, president of the Connecticut AFL-CIO,testified that few strikes last that long.
“In Connecticut, we've had four strikes since 2021 that have lasted over two weeks,” Hawthorne said, out of 21 total strikes.
This is not the first legislative session to feature a proposal for state assistance for striking workers. As reported by the Connecticut Mirror, Gov. Ned Lamont vetoed a related bill at the end of last year’s session.
The Mirror quoted Hawthorne at the time: “Gov. Lamont has failed to hear the voices of thousands of working people who urged him to stand with striking workers. The governor had a choice — stand with corporate CEOs or stand with working people. Unfortunately, he chose corporate CEOs.”
Lamont reportedly did not support the bill that would set aside $3 million in state funds for certain workers because it was too vague. "Lamont was also opposed to a more transparent effort to provide jobless benefits,” the Mirror reported.
While the majority of speakers Thursday were in favor of the proposed change to specify striking workers would qualify for unemployment benefits, there was some disapproval.
“This is not the proper role of government,” said Frank Ricci, labor fellow at the conservative Yankee Institute.
“Workers in Connecticut have the right to form a union,” Ricci said. “They shouldn't have the right to have state government negotiate for them.”
State Senate President Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat, testified in support of the legislation, recalling a moment from his childhood when his father went on strike.
“Would we be able to pay the rent? Would we be able to buy groceries?” Looney recalled thinking. He said no worker willingly strikes.
“It's a hardship,” Looney said. “No one does this very lightly. It's only when workers feel that there is no other alternative. So I think that it's fair for government to look at that and to step in and relieve that hardship at a certain point, and we believe that point is two weeks.”
