COMPARISON OF CONNECTICUT'S STATE EMPLOYEE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAWS
WITH THOSE OF BORDERING STATES
COMPARISON
OF CONNECTICUT'S
STATE EMPLOYEE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAWS WITH THOSE OF BORDERING STATES
March 22, 2010
By: Jeanne Hayes, Legislative Fellow
John Moran, Principal Analyst You asked for a comparison of
Connecticut's state employee collective bargaining laws, including how they
approach retirement benefits, with those of Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island. This report
updates a 2003 report (2003-R-0445).
SUMMARY
There are
considerable similarities between Connecticut's
state employee collective bargaining statute and those of Massachusetts,
New York, and Rhode Island. They all (1) allow employees
to form unions and collectively bargain over wages, hours, and conditions of
employment; (2) specify prohibited practices most of which center around
protecting an employee's freedom to participate in union activities; and (3)
require both employee organizations and employers to bargain in good faith. A
major difference is that Connecticut
is the only state that explicitly allows collective bargaining for retirement
benefits and related issues. Only Massachusetts
does not allow collective bargaining over health insurance benefits.
Connecticut has the broadest binding interest arbitration
law of the four states, with all issues, including wages, and all unions
eligible for binding arbitration. But it also gives the legislature the ability
to reject an award by a two-thirds vote if it determines the state has
insufficient funds to carry out the award.