Proposals to provide striking workers with unemployment benefits and set arbitrary regulations for warehouse workers threaten Connecticut’s economic future. On January 14, two bills advanced in the Labor Committee that might well be the spark that ignites widespread labor unrest, even as the push imposes heavier burdens on our state’s consumers and taxpayers.
One in particular, No. 8 LCO No. 1214, aims to limit how much “warehouse distribution centers can require their employees to meet unreasonable production quotas.” Yet, to avoid public scrutiny, the bill buries the lede. The second part is much more pernicious; it would permit striking workers to collect unemployment benefits.
That initiative is both destructive and wrongheaded. Paying striking workers unemployment benefits is a prescription for prolonged labor disputes. Unemployment benefits are designed to provide a safety net for those who are involuntarily unemployed, not for individuals who voluntarily choose to strike.
What’s more, allowing workers to collect unemployment during strikes distorts the natural balance of labor negotiations and creates a dangerous precedent. Government has no business putting its thumb on the scale in disputes between labor and business.
As a former union president, I’ve stood with workers during strikes — like those at Sikorsky and Stop & Shop — when both sides were incentivized to return to the bargaining table. Now, the government wants to disrupt that delicate balance, reducing the economic effects of a strike on labor while leaving business to be adversely impacted. That crosses a dangerous line.
There is little doubt that this policy is designed to tip the scales in favor of organized labor. A union member openly admitted in 2022 that unemployment benefits during a strike could have allowed workers to stay out longer — a direct admission that the purpose of this bill is to manipulate the system to benefit unions.
The AFL-CIO’s argument that unemployment benefits will push employers to the negotiating table sooner ignores the real-world consequences of this policy. Not only would it raise unemployment insurance premiums for businesses, making Connecticut even less competitive, it would also drive up the costs of goods and services for everyone when businesses are forced to pass along these new costs to consumers.
This kind of cycle inflates our state’s already high cost of living — even as residents already grapple with an affordability crisis. Moreover, businesses involved in labor disputes could face reduced profit margins and suffer long-term reputational damage, pushing them to consider relocating out of state.
Only two states, New York and New Jersey, offer unemployment benefits to striking workers. In contrast, even in far-left California, Governor Gavin Newsom recently vetoed a similar bill in 2023 due to concerns over the state’s already overburdened unemployment insurance fund.
Connecticut’s governor vetoed a similar bill in 2024 — offering a rebuke on the process and mechanism used to pass the legislation — but left the door open for future intrusion into the free market by government.
The other part of this bill — proposing to regulate the productivity quotas in warehouse and distribution centers — places arbitrary limits on how much workers can be expected to produce. It ignores the fact that businesses have strong financial incentives to ensure worker safety and productivity.
A host of other federal and state laws, such as OSHA regulations, already govern workplace safety, and businesses are motivated to strike a balance between worker well-being and operational efficiency. Additional government-imposed quotas risk disrupting the delicate equilibrium of the labor market.
This proposal likewise threatens to increase operational costs for businesses — costs that will inevitably be passed on to Connecticut consumers.
In a state already grappling with high living costs, such measures are a recipe for economic disaster. Connecticut’s warehouses already offer competitive wages and benefits, including signing bonuses, to attract and retain workers in a tight labor market. This bill risks driving businesses to relocate or invest in automation, thereby reducing job opportunities and draining the state’s tax base.
With its wrongheaded striking-workers and warehouse-quota provisions, let’s call Proposed Bill No. 8 LCO No. 1214 what it really is: an economic destabilizer. It is an effort to tilt the playing field in favor of unions at the expense of everyone else — job creators, workers, and consumers. The proposed legislation not only encourages labor unrest but also imposes unnecessary regulatory burdens on employers who are already working within a competitive and highly regulated environment.
Presented as a “pro-worker” initiative, this bill represents a dangerous overreach into the state’s economy that will do more harm than good. By artificially inflating the cost of doing business and extending labor disputes, this bill will hurt the very workers it aims to protect.
If passed, this bill will exacerbate Connecticut’s affordability crisis, discourage business investment, and destabilize labor relations. For Connecticut to remain competitive in an increasingly challenging economic landscape, this kind of legislative overreach must be decisively rejected.
Rather than undermining businesses and creating an environment ripe for prolonged labor unrest, our legislature should advance policies that enhance workers’ rights without sacrificing economic vitality. Connecticut’s people deserve a forward-thinking approach — one that empowers workers, supports employers, and ensures the state remains a place where families and businesses can thrive.
This article originally posted at National Review.
