29 March—Contrary to what many anti-union, anti-worker morons preach (and probably believe), unions are not a form of socialism. Rather, labor unions and collective bargaining are an absolutely vital function of capitalism, an undeniable necessity to counteract arrogant, abusive, or just plain lousy employers, a.k.a. capital and management.

Of course, unions can be every bit as arrogant and abusive as management. That’s clearly the case in Connecticut, where unions representing state and, to a somewhat lesser extent, other public-sector employees generally get whatever they want thanks to the state’s safely, deeply entrenched Democrat legislature and administration being beholden particularly to organized labor to remain in office.

Private-sector unions in Connecticut, while perhaps less arrogant and assertive but certainly less powerful and abusive than their public-sector comrades, don’t make out too badly either.

And, if state Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney and his cronies get their way, Connecticut’s unionized workers will be making out even better and staging strikes more often. Looney’s co-sponsored Senate Bill 938, An Act Concerning Unemployment for Striking Workers, last month sailed through the Labor Committee on a party-line vote (of course). Its absolutely ridiculous purpose, succinctly stated in the proposal, is “to allow striking workers to collect unemployment benefits.”

The Office of Legislative Research summarizes the bill thus: “This bill generally makes striking workers eligible for unemployment benefits after they have been on strike for two consecutive weeks. Current law generally disqualifies claimants for benefits during any week in which their unemployment is due to a labor dispute other than a lockout. The bill lifts this disqualification after a period of two consecutive weeks during which the claimant’s unemployment is due to the labor dispute.

“Under existing law, unchanged by the bill, claimants may also qualify for benefits during a labor dispute, with no waiting period, if (1) the labor dispute is a lockout or (2) the claimant is not participating in the labor dispute and does not belong to a trade, class, or organization of workers that is participating in, financing, or directly interested in the dispute (e.g., non-union employees at a business temporarily closed by a strike).”

Only one state, New York, currently rewards striking workers with unemployment insurance. The Connecticut Senate voted to join New York last year, but the House had the sense not to follow suit. Gov. Lamont doesn’t appear to be too enthusiastic. But you never know. Especially given the hold organized labor has on Connecticut Democrats.

Republican Labor Committee Ranking Member Senator Rob Sampson observed that giving strikers unemployment insurance was “an absurd notion. People are voluntarily walking off the job. I don’t know that that is a justification for providing them with benefits, especially when those benefits are ultimately paid for by employers.”

In all fairness to strikers, Rob may be a bit too quick off the mark and judgemental about the voluntary aspect of strikes, because there are usually very good reasons for job actions. But consider that the strikers will be paid for not working or looking for work—normally a requirement for receiving unemployment compensation—in addition to union strike pay.

Non-union employees involuntarily affected by strikes will be covered. But that’s only fair, much fairer than paying unjustified strikers.

If SB 938 should be enacted, a union might very well choose not to supplement the state’s largess by refusing to pay strikers from its strike fund, which will probably be shifted to other uses, like giving raises to its own management.

In all events, SB 938 isn’t only a very bad idea, it’s stupid, stupid, stupid . . .