The General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee has unveiled a 68-page omnibus proposal titled “An Act Concerning Workforce Development and Working Conditions in the State.” Introduced in an election year, House Bill 5003 consolidates a wide range of labor-related changes affecting public employees, private businesses, municipalities, and schools.
Framed as a package to improve working conditions, the bill reaches into multiple areas of employment law, imposing new mandates, altering existing labor frameworks, and raising potential constitutional and fiscal concerns.
The Janus Issue
One notable concern involves language in Connecticut’s public-sector labor statutes that still references agency fees — payments equivalent to union dues required from nonmembers as a condition of employment. In Janus v. AFSCME (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that compelling such payments violates the First Amendment.
Rather than removing that language, the bill modifies surrounding payroll deduction provisions, allowing employers and unions to negotiate how dues are collected through collective bargaining agreements, while leaving the requirement that nonmembers pay union-equivalent fees. While unenforceable under federal law, retaining unconstitutional language in state law creates confusion and raises questions about legislative intent. Following Janus, many states updated their statutes to conform with the ruling. Connecticut’s failure to do so continues to generate legal ambiguity.
Mandatory Weather Pay
The bill would also require employers to pay workers their full wages when shifts are canceled due to inclement weather and remote work is not feasible. Employers would be prohibited from requiring employees to use accrued leave to cover those hours.
This effectively mandates pay even when no work is performed and no revenue is generated. For small businesses operating on narrow margins, a weather closure could result in paying full wages without corresponding income. The policy may also create perverse incentives — making it financially harder for businesses to close during unsafe conditions.
Expanded Worker Retention Mandates
A worker retention law that currently applies to certain airport food service employees would be expanded statewide. Under the proposal, when service contracts change hands at hospitals, nursing homes, warehouses, shopping centers, apartment complexes, schools, or office buildings, incoming contractors must retain the previous contractor’s workers for 90 days and may terminate only for just cause during that period.
The contractor size threshold would drop from ten employees to two, bringing nearly all small service businesses in the state under the rule.
The bill also removes an existing provision allowing successor contractors to decline to rehire employees whose attendance or performance records “would lead a reasonably prudent employer to terminate them.”
Under the proposed framework, even employees with documented performance or attendance problems would have to be retained during the transition period.
The result is a significant constraint on business flexibility, particularly for small contractors inheriting employees they did not hire.
Statewide “Violent Patient” Registry
The bill would require healthcare providers to report incidents of violence against staff into a statewide system operated through Connecticut’s Health Information Exchange. Those entries could generate alerts to other providers if the patient seeks care elsewhere.
Because designation would be based on clinical reporting rather than a criminal finding, the threshold for inclusion may vary. Patients experiencing mental-health crises, dementia, substance withdrawal, or acute medical distress could be flagged.
For vulnerable populations — including the elderly, people with cognitive impairments, psychiatric conditions, or developmental disabilities — the practical consequence may be reduced access to care. Providers receiving alerts may be more reluctant to schedule appointments, accept transfers, or treat patients in non-emergency settings, especially in understaffed facilities already concerned about safety risks.
Although an appeals process is included, the bill does not clearly define timelines or removal standards. A disputed designation could remain active during review, potentially affecting access to care.
While staff safety is an important goal, the proposal raises questions about patient due process and unintended consequences for vulnerable populations.
Teacher Terminations and Binding Arbitration
The bill would shift teacher termination decisions away from local boards of education and place final authority in the hands of an independent hearing officer whose ruling would be binding.
This change removes elected local officials from the final decision-making process and limits districts’ ability to challenge outcomes. Because courts typically defer to arbitration-style rulings, appeals would become more difficult. School districts would also share the cost of the hearing officer, adding financial strain to personnel disputes.
The proposal represents a substantial change in governance structure and local accountability.
Election-Year Timing
A public hearing is scheduled for March 3. The breadth of the bill — and the number of long-standing union priorities it addresses — makes it one of the most consequential labor proposals of the session.
Regardless of political context, the implications are structural. Businesses, municipalities, healthcare providers, and taxpayers will live under the rules created here long after the legislative session ends.
Sweeping changes to employment law warrant careful review, robust public debate, and transparent consideration. A bill of this scale and consequence deserves nothing less.
