Over 100 Workers Testify in Support of Unemployment Insurance for Striking Workers

Yesterday, the Labor & Public Employees Committee held a public hearing that would protect workers in warehouse distribution centers and allow workers on strike to access unemployment insurance.

112 members of the public signed up to testify. Only 3 were in opposition. In addition to numerous pieces of written testimony, nearly everyone else testified in favor of these bills.

Allowing working people on strike to access unemployment insurance will restore balance to collective bargaining.

Employers' refusal to fairly negotiate is a feature of their bargaining strategy, not a bug. During the Writer’s Guild strike in 2023, one studio executive said:

The endgame is to allow things to drag on until union members start losing their apartments and losing their homes.

When corporate CEOs know that workers have a safety net, it will encourage both sides to engage in good faith bargaining and come to an agreement more quickly and potentially without the need to go on strike in the first place.

This legislation prevents employers from using the financial hardship of workers as a bargaining tool, and it helps create a level playing field between working people and corporations.

Here is the full testimony of Connecticut AFL-CIO President Ed Hawthorne:

Testimony of
Ed Hawthorne, President
Connecticut AFL-CIO

Labor & Public Employees Committee
February 13, 2025

SB 8 An Act Concerning Protections for Workers and Enhancements to Workers’ Rights

HB 6904 An Act Concerning Unemployment Benefits for Striking Workers

HB 6907 An Act Concerning the Use of Quotas by Warehouse Distribution Centers

Good morning, Senator Kushner, Representative Sanchez, and members of the Labor & Public Employees Committee.  My name is Ed Hawthorne, and I am proud to serve as the President of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, a federation of hundreds of local unions representing more than 250,000 active and retired workers in the private sector, public sector, and building trades. Our members live and work in every city and town in our state and reflect the diversity that makes Connecticut great. It is on their behalf that I testify today in support of SB 8, HB 6904 and HB 6907.

It is fitting that the Committee is hearing these two issues – granting access to unemployment for striking workers and establishing protections for warehouse workers – together in this hearing.  Today, 20 workers at i-Health, a warehouse facility in Enfield, have been on strike since December 2, 2024.  These workers process and distribute products that are shipped to major retailers across the country and around the world. In March 2024, they voted to form a union and join Teamsters Local 671 with the hope of negotiating improved health care and guarantees against being forced to work unreasonably long hours.  After i-Health refused to bargain in good faith for months and committed a series of unfair labor practices, these brave workers voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike. Two days later, the employer fired 11 full-time workers and one temporary worker without just-cause via text message.

The events at i-Health are just the most recent reminder of how the laws in our state and our country are stacked against hardworking employees who just want a fair shot to get ahead.  By addressing the health and safety concerns of warehouse workers and taking action to protect workers’ right to strike by allowing them to access unemployment, the Committee demonstrates that it is in touch with the needs of workers in this state. We thank you for that.

SB 8 & HB 6904 – Unemployment for Striking Workers

Workers are fed up with low wages, unaffordable healthcare, insufficient or non-existent retirement benefits and the overall lack of respect employers have for them while they rake in record profits generated by their labor. The data tells a compelling story.  CEO compensation has skyrocketed more than 1,200% since 1978. The wages of a typical worker have grown just 15% since that time.  The average CEO-to-worker pay ratio was 268-to-1 for S&P 500 Index companies in 2023, compared to CEOs in 1965 who were paid just 21 times as much as a typical worker. It would take more than five career lifetimes for workers to earn what CEOs receive in just one year.[1]

This chasm of disparity between corporate profits and workers’ wages makes it difficult for workers to advocate for fair treatment without risking economic hardship. Rather than negotiate in good faith, some employers make unreasonable demands to force employees to strike, attempting to “starve them out.” Some employers strategically weaponize the economic instability of their employees to suppress wages and working conditions. The law allows employers to leverage the threat of evictions, foreclosures and repossessions because striking workers cannot access unemployment benefits. 

Connecticut can create a more level playing field between workers and wealthy corporations by extending access to unemployment insurance (UI) to striking workers.  The UI program was designed to support workers, alleviate individual hardship, and protect the economy. Making striking workers eligible for UI aligns with the program’s intent and creates benefits that far outweigh its negligible costs. 

New York’s UI program was enacted in 1935 and served as a model for the federal UI program. It included striking workers from the beginning and today, like New Jersey, provides assistance to workers after they have been on strike for two consecutive weeks, as SB 8 and HB 6904 provide. You will hear from our colleagues at the New York State AFL-CIO about how their program has encouraged good faith bargaining and avoided strikes, goals that we all share.

Voting to authorize a strike is one of the most difficult and traumatic experiences a worker and their colleagues can face. When workers vote to strike, they risk everything - their jobs, their healthcare, and their futures. But sometimes there is no other way to negotiate a fair contract with large and powerful employers. It’s never a choice.  But many believe the alternative - the chance to achieve long-term improvements in pay, benefits and working conditions - is worth the risk.

The National Labor Relations Act allows workers to withhold their labor to improve working conditions, but workers are at a significant disadvantage if they cannot afford to exercise that right. SB 8 & HB 6904 allow them to do that, levelling the playing field and encouraging employers to remain at the bargaining table. SB 8 and HB 6904 will encourage good faith negotiations and avoid strikes. If an employer understands that their individual unemployment experience rating could increase if their employees are able to access unemployment benefits after being on strike for two weeks, they will be more likely to avoid a work stoppage altogether.  They would also save themselves the inconvenience and added cost of hiring and training replacement workers.

SB 8 and HB 6904 would allow striking workers to access temporary, partial income replacement (up to 50% of their wages) after a two-week waiting period. This will have a positive economic impact on the state’s economy. When striking workers can pay the rent and afford groceries, it creates a safety net for their families, small businesses, and entire communities.  Economists estimate that every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates $2 worth of economic activity.[2] That helps sustain local retail outlets, childcare facilities, and other community businesses during a strike.  It also reduces workers’ reliance on other state safety net programs.

Opponents of SB 8 and HB 6904 have made unsubstantiated claims that it will have an adverse impact on the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. These claims are simply unfounded. First, it should be noted that the potential universe of workers who would be impacted by this legislation is small. Just 7.7% of Connecticut’s private sector workforce belongs to a union and has the legal right to strike. Second, strikes are rare.  The Worker Institute at Cornell University has been tracking work stoppages since January 2021.[3]During that time, just 21 strikes took place in Connecticut. Only five have lasted longer than two weeks, including the ongoing strike at i-Health that I mentioned:

• In 2021, 185 SEIU 1199NE members in four Sunrise Northeast locations (Hartford, Columbia, New London, Danielson) went on strike for 58 days for better pay, healthcare and retirement benefits.
• In 2021, 1,300 United Steelworkers members at Alleghany Technologies in Waterbury went on strike for 111 days over pay, healthcare, and job security.
• In 2022, 50 SEIU 1199NE members at Windsor Health and Rehabilitation went on strike for 26 days for better pay and affordable healthcare.

• In 2023, 1,700 SEIU 1199NE members at nine group homes went on strike for 23 days to fight for better pay, affordable healthcare, and retirement benefits.

• In 2024, 20 Teamsters Local 671 members at i-Health in Enfield began an unfair labor practice strike on December 2, 2024, and it is still ongoing.  Workers are fighting for their first contract and management’s response was to increase workdays, work weeks and mandate work on holidays. Management fired 12 striking workers two days after the strike began.

Daniel Perez from the Economic Policy Institute will testify here today about his new report, Unemployment Insurance for Striking Workers: A Low-Cost Policy That’s Good for Workers and State Economies. His research demonstrates that there is no basis for concern that SB 8 and HB 6904 will adversely affect the UI Trust Fund.[4]  His analysis of the strike and unemployment data shows that if all eligible striking workers applied for and received UI benefits, it would represent just 0.04% of all state claims.  He also determines that making striking workers eligible for UI is good economics.  It would mitigate some of the immediate economic risk to workers and their families; keep dollars flowing to communities where a strike is taking place; ensure striking workers can negotiate a fair contract with their employer; and allow striking workers to resume jobs for which they are already trained. 

Further, the state has already tipped the balance in favor of employers with regard to existing unemployment insurance policy and actions taken regarding the UI Trust Fund.  Striking workers can already access benefits if the employer locks them out, rewarding the decisions of the employer, who also holds workers’ jobs and benefits in their hands.

I began my testimony explaining the circumstances responsible for creating some of the power and wealth divides between employers and employees.  I think it’s worth sharing that the general public understands these issues and regardless of age, gender or partisan affiliation, expresses robust support for workers and their unions.  An August 2024 Gallup survey found that 70% of Americans expressed support for labor unions, understanding that the work they do contributes to a healthy economy. They also stood with workers during labor disputes - more than 72% sympathized with striking television and film writers (Writers Guild), 67% backed striking television and film actors (SAG-AFTRA) and a staggering 75% supported striking auto workers (UAW).[5]  The public is on the side of the workers.  We urge this Committee to join them and support SB 8 and HB 6904.  Thank you.

SB 8 & HB 6907 – Protections for Warehouse Workers

The National Employment Law Project (NELP) in 2024 reported that the explosion of online sales in recent decades has generated a rapid increase in the number of warehouse jobs.  Almost two million American workers are employed at warehouses today.  The rate of warehouse worker injury is twice that of the private sector average for all other industries, with thousands of warehouse workers sustaining injuries requiring medical treatment.  The largest warehouse employer, Amazon, has among the highest injury rates among its peers.[6]

Amazon and other warehouse employers use algorithms to track productivity rates among its warehouse workers, logging the number of packages they pick, pack, and stow each hour. If workers take a break from scanning packages for too long - to use the restroom, for example - Amazon’s internal system will log it as “time off task” and generate a warning, which can lead to employee discipline or termination. Quotas have become increasingly common in warehouses as same-day and next-day delivery are increasingly promised to customers.  These quotas can change at any time without the employee’s knowledge.  Unfortunately, warehouse employers do not hire sufficient staff to keep pace with customer demand.  The subsequent focus on speed is a primary contributor to high rates of injury among warehouse and delivery workers.  The quotas also do not permit workers to comply with safety guidelines or to reasonably recover from strenuous activity during peak work times.

NELP also found that Connecticut Amazon warehouse workers’ injuries are especially high, having increased twenty percent from 2020 to 2021. The rate of worker injuries rose from 5.3 per 100 full time employees (FTEs) in 2020 to 6.3 per 100 FTEs in 2021.  Ninety-three percent of those injuries were severe enough that workers could not continue performing their normal job duties and had to either change job duties or take time off work to recover, making the injuries at Connecticut Amazon facilities 15 percent higher than the national warehousing industry average.[7]

SB 8 and HB 6907 require warehouse employers to disclose their production quotas to workers and notify them of any changes to productivity expectations. It also prohibits companies from imposing quotas that prevent workers from taking meal, rest, or bathroom breaks.  We are especially glad to see protections against worker retaliation and data collection and monitoring requirements from the Department of Labor and Workers’ Compensation Commission. 

California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Washington have enacted similar legislation.  Another bill in Illinois awaits Governor J.B. Pritzker’s signature. We urge the Committee to support these important bills to protect the health and safety of Connecticut’s warehouse employees.   Thank you.

[1]https://aflcio.org/paywatch#:~:text=Average%20CEO%20Pay%20Is%20Growing,receive%20in%20just%20one%20year.

[2]https://www.epi.org/blog/cutting-off-the-600-boost-to-unemployment-benefits-would-be-both-cruel-and-bad-economics-new-personal-income-data-show-just-how-steep-the-coming-fiscal-cliff-will-be/              

[3]https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/

[4]https://www.epi.org/publication/ui-striking-workers/#full-report

[5]https://news.gallup.com/poll/510281/unions-strengthening.aspx

[6]https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Amazons-Outsized-Role-5-1-24.pdf

[7]https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2023/02/Data-Brief-CT-Amazon-Worker-Injuries-2-2023.pdf