To the Editor:
Monday, May 19, 2025 marked the beginning of the third week of the Pratt & Whitney machinists’ strike. Roughly 3000 workers voted to go on strike, and here’s hoping that both management & labor will work together to come to a mutually agreeable and quick resolution. Bills proposed by Connecticut House & Senate Democrats this 2025 legislative session would seek to provide unemployment compensation to workers who are on strike for more than 14 days. House bill 6904 and Senate bill 8 both passed out of the Labor & Public Employees committee along party lines. Democrat party leadership announced these pieces of legislation as priorities for this session. A watered down version of this legislation as a nod to the unions, passed both the House & Senate in 2024, and Governor Lamont was right to veto it.
During public hearing testimony, we heard from dozens of unionized employees who advocated for this benefit. Several recalled personal accounts of being on strike, and nobody described it as a pleasant experience. By all measurements, the choice to go on strike is the equivalent of hitting the nuclear option, and is not a decision made likely. As the Labor & Public Employees committee members debated, going on strike, regardless of how tough of a decision, is a willful action taken by a vote of union members. I’ve spoken to unionized contractors privately who think asking to be compensated while on strike is a bit rich.
The Connecticut Department of Labor has safeguards in place in order for one to collect unemployment insurance, with claimants needing to meet several requirements. A claimant must be legally authorized to work in the US, actively looking for work, mentally & physically able to work, available to accept new work, and be out of work through no fault of his/ her own. When workers vote to go on strike, they clearly are making a clear choice to stop working, and under current law, are disqualified from unemployment compensation eligibility.
Employers are the ones who pay into the unemployment compensation trust fund. By granting benefits to striking employees, employers would essentially be funding the other side of the negotiating table. If striking employees no longer have to worry about the consequences of a strike, the scales will be entirely tipped against the employer. Employers will essentially be negotiating against themselves.
Roughly 16% of Connecticut’s workforce is unionized, and we should not drive state policy at the behest of a minority. It is not the role of government to take sides in a labor dispute. The role of government is to remain neutral and to foster an environment of a highly skilled workforce, lower taxes, lower regulation, and one with reliable & affordable energy. We consistently score towards the bottom of the list with regard to economic competitiveness. Policies like this are the opposite of being welcoming to new business investment. Policies like this are ones that drive investment away.
I support the right of employees to collectively bargain. Unionized employees pay dues in part, for union representation. Some unions maintain a strike fund, which is paid into by union employees, and is to be used to supplement employee income in the event of a strike. Instead of trying to force employers to subsidize a strike, unions would better serve their members by maintaining an adequate strike fund. Unions advertise protection for their members. Unions should advocate for economic policies that will lead to more work for their members instead of lobbying the legislature to bargain on their behalf.
Steve Weir
Weir is State Representative for the 55th district, serving the towns of Andover, Bolton, Glastonbury, Hebron & Marlborough