Once again, Mr. Perry is willing to fabricate any falsehood to tear me down regardless of the facts. The bill he attacks me for voting against ultimately included no provisions about bathroom breaks. It was about granting unemployment benefits to striking workers, a policy the Governor vetoed, and one Mr. Perry is presumably in favor of since he is criticizing my vote. If anything, this one highlights my effectiveness from the minority.
My opponent’s ad claims workers asked for bathroom breaks and that I voted no on SB 8 (2025). That is false.
SB 8 began as a priority package from Senate President Martin Looney and Senate Democratic leadership. The original version combined two things: new state rules on production quotas at large warehouse distribution centers (including language that quotas could not interfere with meal periods or bathroom use, including travel time), and a change that would make striking workers eligible for unemployment benefits after 14 consecutive days on strike.
Office of Legislative Research Bill Analysis of SB 8 (pre-amendment):
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/BA/PDF/2025SB-00008-R000177-BA.PDF
The warehouse language was stripped before the floor vote by Senate Amendment Schedule A. The version that actually passed the Senate 24-11 on May 28 and the House 87-59 on May 30, and that I voted against, was only the striking-workers unemployment provision. It became Public Act 25-64 and was vetoed by Governor Lamont on June 23, 2025.
Final vetoed Public Act 25-64 text:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/act/Pa/pdf/2025PA-00064-R00SB-00008-PA.PDF
Full bill history and actions (Connecticut General Assembly):
Governor Lamont called paying striking workers “a bridge too far” and said he would not support a bill that discourages jobs in the state. In his veto message he stated that the Unemployment Trust Fund exists to help people who are out of work through no fault of their own, and that extending benefits to people actively participating in a labor dispute changes the fundamental purpose of the program.
WTNH reporting on Lamont’s veto:
https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/gov-lamont-to-talk-pending-connecticut-legislation
Hartford Courant reporting:
CBIA summary of the veto:
https://www.cbia.com/news/issues-policies/bridge-too-far-striking-workers-unemployment-bill-vetoed
Unemployment is funded by employers and is meant for people who lose a job involuntarily and are seeking work. Using that system to subsidize a voluntary work stoppage tips the scale in negotiations and is bad policy for Connecticut workers and taxpayers. I opposed it in committee and on the floor for that reason.
The bathroom-break framing is also misleading. This was not a spontaneous request from workers that the legislature simply answered. It was driven by organized labor and Democratic leadership as part of a broader effort to regulate private warehouse employers, particularly large operations like Amazon, through new state mandates on quotas, notice, record-keeping, and enforcement. People choose these jobs voluntarily. If the conditions do not suit them, they are free to leave. There is no record of widespread, unaddressed complaints that required this kind of government intervention.
Plain and simple this was an extreme anti-business bill and I am glad it failed.
By attacking my no vote on SB 8, my opponent is signaling that he supports the approach the bill represented: more state regulation of voluntary private employment and using the unemployment system to support strikes. He is also willing to misstate the actual bill that was voted on in order to win this election.
Here are my comments in committee on the bill.
And here are my comments from the Senate Floor on the final bill – which ultimately had nothing to do with bathroom breaks.
Voters in the 16th District can check the public record themselves—the bill text, the amendments, the roll calls, and the veto.
Comments are closed