Laura Glesby photo
Housekeeper Everlana Allen with fellow workers at a protest outside the Omni in August 2020.
Following in the steps of New Haven’s Board of Alders, state lawmakers advanced a “worker recall law” that would require Connecticut businesses to give recently laid-off former employees first dibs at returning to their old jobs.
The state legislature’s Labor and Public Employees Committee voted 9 – 4 in support of that proposed legislation Thursday afternoon, thereby advancing the relevant bill to the floor of the state Senate for further debate and a potential future vote. The virtual hearing was live-streamed on YouTube.
The bill in question is Senate Bill No. 658: An Act Requiring Employers To Recall Certain Laid-Off Workers In Order Of Seniority.
Co-sponsored by New Haven State Sen. and President Pro Tem Martin Looney, New Haven State Rep. Roland Lemar, and Hamden State Sen. Jorge Cabrera, the proposed bill would require all Connecticut employers rehire employees who have been laid off during the pandemic as soon as their old jobs or similar jobs are available again.
The bill would cover workers laid off any time between March 10, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2024 “due to the lack of business or a reduction or furlough of the employer’s workforce, the public health and civil prepardeness emergencies declared by the Governor on March 10, 2020, or other economic, nondisciplinary reasons.”
YouTube
Thursday’s virtual state commitee hearing.
A laid-off employee is qualified for a position, according to the bill, if they held the same or a similar position at that business before they were let go, or if they could become qualified after receiving the same training that any new employee hired for that position would get.
Where more than one recently laid-off employee is eligible for a position, the bill states, “the employer shall offer the position to the employee with the greatest length of service at the employment site.”
And if the proposed law passes and an employer does not follow its provisions, then a recently laid-off employee can bring a civil action against their former employer in state Superior Court.
A court could then order an employer to rehire the employee and pay back pay, fringe benefits, “or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.”
The bill tracks closely with a local “worker recall law” passed by the Board of Alders last December.
That local legislation, however, is limited only to workers in the New Haven hotel industry.
This proposed state bill significantly expands upon that bill’s scope by applying the worker recall provisions to employers and employees in all sectors of the economy.
SB 658 defines an employer covered by this law as “any person, including a corporate officer or executive, who directly or indirectly or through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a temporary service or staffing agency or similar entity, conducts an enterprise and employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any employee.”
Anti-Employer? Anti-Employee?
The only state lawmaker to speak up on this specific proposed bill during Thursday committee hearing was Rob Sampson (pictured), a Republican state senator from Wolcott.
Sampson referred to this bill as emblematic of the “heavy hand of government, once again.”
“An employer who lays off employees should be allowed to choose who he brings back and when for what’s best for his company,” he said.
He said the proposed bill unduly interferes with the cornerstone of a “productive economy”: that is, “letting employers make good decisions to grow their companies, and the ability to hire people, increase wages, and improve lives of people generally.”
“I’m about freedom, Madame Chairman,” he said. “I believe that freedom is always the answer in these situations.”
New Haven State Rep. Robyn Porter (pictured), who chairs the state labor committee, pushed back against Sampson’s “anti-employer” accusations during her comments in support of a separate but related bill, House Bill No. 6595, a so-called “omnibus” labor law that includes a section with the exact same language as SB 658.
“We talk a lot about anti-employer, but we don’t talk a lot about anti-employee,” she said. “It frustrates me a little when we do that, because the success of these corporations and businesses are on the backs of their employees. There’s no success without workers coming in to get the work done.”
Looney: “A Fair Deal & A Level Playing Field”
Sam Gurwitt photo
In written testimony submitted in support of the bill in advance of a public hearing the committee held on the item earlier this session, Looney (pictured) also threw his support behind worker recall by seniority.
“This will protect workers who have been laid off such that when they are called back, they will return to their former jobs at their former rate of pay and conditions of work. It would protect these employees from being forced to re-apply for their jobs as if they were new employees and being hired at a much lower rate of pay,” he wrote. “This protection will be needed as our economy improves as we get COVID under control.
“The last year has been a long year for employees in our state as they have struggled with the economic hardship caused by the pandemic. We owe them a fair deal and a level playing field as they work to regain their former economic standing.”
Ruqaiijah Yearby, a law professor at Saint Louis University School of Law who also testified in support of New Haven’s hotel worker law last year, agreed in her written testimony to the state legislative committee.
She argued in her testimony that the recall law could have positive effects on everything from encouraging compliance with Covid-19 mitigation recommendations to addressing racial disparities that constitute a public health matter to reducing stress levels for workers and thereby protecting their immune systems.
She also wrote that more experienced employees are better situated to create a safer workplace.
“Workers who know their workplace setting well have an advantage in thinking about how to mitigate risk, for themselves, their coworkers, and any clients or customers,” she wrote. “For example, an experienced hotel worker would be better situated to raise concerns or make decisions about whether rooms are well ventilated. Workers in a new or unfamiliar setting are far less equipped to make those kinds of judgments, leading to reduced safety for everyone who encounters the workplace.”
I said it whn the city passed a version of this law, but it seems like it's completely common sense to me, and I'm glad that Looney and Porter are leading the charge. Workers need a leg up, and this seems like a good way to give it to them without actually encumbering business. Good for Looney and Porter.