by Hudson Kamphausen CTNewsJunkie
FILE PHOTO: Gov. Ned Lamont and Office of Policy and Management Secretary Jeffrey Beckham listen to a question during a news conference Thursday, May 9, 2024, in the governor’s office at the state Capitol in Hartford following the end of the legislative session. Credit: Hudson Kamphausen / CTNewsJunkie
HARTFORD, CT – Gov. Ned Lamont on Tuesday vetoed the hotly-contested “striker’s aid bill,” which has incited strong reactions from one side of the aisle in particular, with advocates saying the governor chose the side of corporations.
The bill would have provided $3 million in aid to striking private-sector workers, but was labeled by some as vague or as an improper use of state funds.
“While the intention to provide assistance to low-income workers is commendable, there are significant concerns with the language as drafted,” Lamont wrote in his decision.
Public Act 24-131 – formerly House Bill 5431 – would have, among other things, shifted the proposed allocation into a new fund to provide aid to low-income striking workers and their families that would have been controlled by the office of the state comptroller.
Lamont also referenced the lack of standards and specificity for the fund as primary reasons for his reticence.
“Without clear goals or metrics for success, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of this initiative in addressing the needs of low-income workers,” he continued.
Senate President Martin Looney and Majority Leader Bob Duff said in a statement that they were disappointed by Lamont’s decision, and that the bill would have addressed unemployment compensation costs.
“We are determined to return with the original concept which will address the governor’s concern regarding ‘criteria for eligibility or the specific types of assistance that will be provided,” they said.
Looney and Duff also said that some of Connecticut’s neighboring states have already passed similar legislation, and that it is out of necessity.
“Workers do not strike casually or without justification; striking usually results only when employers have been intransigent or have refused to bargain in good faith,” they continued. “These workers often sustain hardships due to the painful decision to strike, which this bill sought to address and ease.”
The decision was met with similar ire from labor advocates in the state.
AFL-CIO President Ed Hawthorne said in a statement that the bill would have given private sector employees a better shot to negotiate a living wage.
“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,” he said.
Hawthorne thanked the members of the General Assembly who supported the legislation for their work, including Democratic leadership in both chambers.
The bill was passed through both chambers without much meaningful debate, though several Republicans objected to its vague use of state funds, and said they hoped the governor would veto it.
Lamont previously voiced uncertainty about the bill, saying at a post-session press conference on May 9 that he “would not support it.”
The statement was lauded by Republican leaders, who decried the bill as the creation of a slush fund.
“The governor recognizes the absolute absurdity of the brazen bill that all of his fellow Democrats voted for. To be clear: Legislative Democrats signed off on a bill that was cloaked in ambiguity and non-specifics. They signed off on a bill which had no public hearing, so they willingly silenced the voice of the people,” said a statement from Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding and Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott.
The governor said he wants to continue to work toward what he views as sensible policies in the area.
“I remain committed to working with legislature to develop sound policies that ensure the effective use of public funds, maintains transparency and accountability in government operations, and continues to prioritize the needs of our low-income workers and families,” he said near the end of his letter.