“I have picked a side, and I picked that side a long time ago, and it’s with working families and with the workers of Connecticut, and I’m proud of that.”
Sen. Julie Kushner (D-Danbury) made that statement during a March 19 meeting of the Labor and Public Employees Committee while advancing Senate Bill 440, which would allow striking workers to collect unemployment benefits. The bill ultimately passed out of committee on a party-line vote.
Her comment was not an offhand remark. It underscored a central question surrounding the legislation: what role should government play in private labor disputes?
Kushner’s background provides context. Before entering the legislature, she served as assistant director of UAW Region 9A and as a chief negotiator — roles focused on advocating for workers in labor negotiations. Now, as a policymaker, she is supporting legislation that would alter the balance of those negotiations.
The debate is not about whether workers should have the right to strike. They do. The question is whether public policy should shift that balance by introducing government-backed financial support during those disputes.
Who the Bill Applies To
During the committee discussion, Kushner framed the proposal as supporting “working families.” But the bill’s scope is narrower.
SB 440 applies to individuals engaged in a labor dispute — in practice, primarily unionized workers participating in organized strikes. Non-union workers typically do not operate within the same structure, lacking collective bargaining agreements or coordinated strike activity.
That distinction is central to the policy debate. Critics argue the bill provides targeted support to one group of workers while leaving others outside its scope.
Changing the Role of Unemployment Insurance
During the hearing, Sen. Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott) described the bill as placing “a thumb on the scale” that “makes it very clear that the state will be taking the side of the employees.”
Under current law, unemployment insurance is intended to support individuals who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. SB 440 would expand eligibility to include workers who voluntarily stop working as part of a strike.
That change carries broader implications.
Strikes inherently involve economic tradeoffs. Workers take on financial risk by withholding labor, while employers absorb operational and financial disruptions. That dynamic creates pressure on both sides to reach an agreement.
By allowing unemployment benefits during a strike, the bill alters that balance by reducing financial pressure on one side of the negotiation.
Sen. Sampson pressed the point directly during the hearing.
“How is a worker who voluntarily withholds labor from their employer unemployed through no fault of his or her own?” he asked.
It’s a simple question with major implications.
The bill hinges on the term “labor dispute,” defined broadly as “any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment.”
That definition is expansive enough that Sen. Sampson warned “you could drive a planet through it”.
A Legal Question
Beyond policy considerations, the bill may also raise legal questions.
Federal unemployment law requires that recipients be able to work, available to work, and actively seeking employment. Workers on strike are not seeking new employment; they are withholding labor in order to return to their current positions under different terms.
This creates a potential conflict with federal requirements.
If a state’s unemployment system is found to be out of compliance, it could jeopardize federal funding and affect employer tax obligations. Under current federal law, most employers pay an effective federal unemployment tax rate of 0.6 percent on the first $7,000 of each employee’s wages — $42 per worker. Lose compliance, and that rate jumps to 6 percent — $420 per worker — automatically, without a legislative vote.
This isn’t just a policy choice. It’s a legal risk.
Employers Pay — Either Way
The cost structure of unemployment insurance is also central to the debate.
Unemployment insurance is funded primarily through employer contributions. As a result, businesses involved in a labor dispute,as well as other employers paying into the system, could bear the cost of benefits provided to striking workers.
During the hearing, Rep. Steve Weir (R-Hebron) raised this concern, noting the policy would require employers to “subsidize the strike against them.”
She Said It
SB 440 raises a broader policy question: should the state remain neutral in labor disputes, or take a more active role?
Sen. Kushner’s quote wasn’t a slip. It was a summary. “I have picked a side.”
SB 440 reflects that choice — not in rhetoric, but in structure.
It narrows who benefits. It shifts how unemployment insurance works. And it places the state inside negotiations that were previously left to employers and employees to resolve.
The question now is not whether the bill takes a position, but whether that is a role the state should play.
And, if adopted, how that choice would interact with federal law, employer costs, and the broader labor market.
