In This Issue:
From Paddi's Desk
CT Agency Corner
Municipal Roundup
From Inside The Golden Dome
This Day in CT History
|
|
|
Where are Connecticut’s workers?
Anyone who lives, works or visits Connecticut these days has got to be scratching their heads— wondering what’s happening in the workforce. Tons of "employees wanted" (and needed) signs are decorating store windows, flyers are being dropped at high-potential residential homes, recruitment fairs at college campuses are at an all-time high and you can even be recruited on television and radio ads these days. From restaurants needing high-end wait staff to all those who work behind the scenes to make the meals happen in our restaurants, both highly skilled manufacturing professionals and their colleagues who drive the trucks to get the products to market, businesses are struggling. The supply chain’s shortage of workers is real and if you’ve seen the store shelves or tried to get a same day/next day Amazon delivery, don’t be disappointed if they profusely apologize for the logistic delays.
Personal/residential service workers like landscapers, lawn care, general fix-it workers and even the basic retail part-time employment opportunities for grocery stores, pharmacies, box stores and alike are all scrambling for dependable, long-term help. With the holidays only ten weeks away, more and more stores are providing higher than ever hourly wages, signing bonuses and even referral bonuses for current employees who land the next employee.
Healthcare and social service organizations, which for the past two years seemed to be “workplace secure,” are hearing rumblings about having the right healthcare folks in the right spots—some markets struggle with having too many hospital staffers but not enough homecare workers. Others have the right number of group home aides, but cannot provide enough pay or benefits given the past two years of stress and strain.
Recruitment is a huge problem but retention is now starting to become an employer challenge. The last two years has profoundly changed how people see their work-life balance, their choice of careers, what they are willing to do—whether or not to put up with long hours, extensive travel and heavier workloads with little relief in sight.
Given the census numbers released at the end of the summer, one would wonder what Connecticut residents are doing these days if there are “plenty” of jobs but few applicants. With the extra federal and state financial incentives all but evaporated, it would seem as if there is a match made in heaven.
Not so much. The Child Tax Credit in the American Rescue Plan provides the largest Child Tax Credit ever and historic relief to the country's working families— and as of July 15th, most families are automatically receiving monthly payments of $250 or $300 per child without having to take any action.
The American Rescue Plan increased the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 per child to $3,000 per child for children over the age of six and from $2,000 to $3,600 for children under the age of six, and raised the age limit from 16 to 17. All working families will get the full credit if they make up to $150,000 for a couple or $112,500 for a family with a single parent.
So why wouldn’t you find a job, keep the job and qualify for this enormous investment in your children’s future?
No one knows.
As they say, follow the numbers. But for now, the numbers just aren’t adding up.
|
|
State of Connecticut v. State of Connecticut ? The intersection of a part-time legislator and private citizen
As our clients probably know by now, Connecticut is a part time legislature that at times before and during the legislative session is a full time commitment. Their pay for hours worked is drastically lower than the average person in the similar private sector field but most sitting legislators are given incentives not available in the private sector such as pensions and unbeatable health care benefits. Over time the state has started to renegotiate these benefits (those sworn in after 2018 are enrolled in defined contribution plans) but legislators also have the freedom to work in any profession of their choosing while serving the State of Connecticut as long as no inherent conflicts arise.
Enter the quandary of a lawsuit being led by two Republican State Representatives who are private practicing attorneys and are permitted, despite serving as state legislators, to sue the State of Connecticut. You heard that right.
Restrictions implemented and extended during the State of Emergency on mask requirements at schools is the centerpiece of the lawsuit being led by Rep. Fishbein (R-Wallingford) and Rep. Dubitsky (R-Chaplin). The State has made it clear that no state laws are violated in this case but is certainly an awkward intersection for the plaintiffs. Think for example of how legal cases proceed under the presumption that evidence needs to be used to justify the basis of the lawsuit: How is evidence obtained by the plaintiffs while they also represent districts of the state? Can a State Representative urge the court to subpoena colleagues based on discussions they have in Hartford?
This case in particular has attracted a large amount of attention not because of the content of the suit but certainly because of the contentious nature involved between the parties.
|
|
This week DataHaven in conjunction with Sustainable CT released a statewide report on equity. This report includes town by town data on diversity, which is one of many reports that have been released to get to know CT towns through data. The reports utilized information from federal and state agencies as well as local surveys of randomly selected adults to provide detailed overviews of social and economic conditions. These reports present differences between neighborhoods in communities and the vast differences between each community in CT. It’s a fascinating look at each town's unique character. For your town’s report or if you’re curious to see what it's like in Andover all the way to Woodstock, you can find them here: https://www.ctdatahaven.org/reports/connecticut-town-equity-reports
|
|
Senate GOP Plan to Address Crime
For the past year, Connecticut's Republican legislators have persistently called for legislative action to address the state's issues with juvenile crime. The GOP has held multiple press conferences this year outlining issues with auto thefts, violent crime, and general recidivism among Connecticut's youth offenders. They have called for a special session to find legislative solutions to these issues multiple times, but to no avail. Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney derided Republican efforts back in July, accusing them of using a hit and run incident in New Britain “to attempt to score political points in an effort to push failed, excessively punitive policies from the 80s and 90s.”
On Wednesday, Senate Republicans issued their formal plan for tackling juvenile justice issues in a sixteen page document titled "A Better Way to a Safer Connecticut". The plan is split into three parts: Crime Response, Prevention and Opportunity, and Support Police & Safe Communities.
The "Crime Response" section offers recommendations for changes to current statute pertaining to juvenile detention. Senate Republicans advocate for technical changes to the detention order process, mandatory around-the-clock GPS monitoring of juveniles arrested for violent crimes or repeat offenses while they await trial for a prior offense, mandatory fingerprinting of juveniles arrested for a felony, a Class A Misdemeanor, a charge resulting from loss of life or serious physical injury, a
sexual assault, a serious juvenile offense, or an offense involving use of a
firearm, and the revision of the protocol for transferring a juvenile offender to adult court for serious offenses. The plan also calls for an increase in the 6 hour time limit for holding juveniles when the arresting department is seeking a detention order.
Other proposals to curb youth criminality is to create employment pipelines between high schools and trade apprenticeships, providing at risk youth with direct employment opportunities. The republicans also propose changes to Section 8 policies, and other housing measures to ensure that at-risk youth can have safe living conditions. Finally, the plan outlines changes to certain statutes governing policing, and proposes new ways to encourage higher police recruitment. To view the full proposal, click here.
|
|
October 15, 1853: Connecticut Governor Resigns to Go to Russia
Today in 1853, Thomas H. Seymour, one of Connecticut’s most accomplished — and controversial — 19th century politicians, stepped down as as Governor. He resigned to accept a nomination by the New Hampshire born and quite unlikely President (he was nominated by the Democrats on their 48th ballot) Franklin Pierce to serve as the United States’ ambassadorial minister to Russia. It was the latest in a long list of prestigious accomplishments for Seymour, whose popularity was at its peak.
Born in 1807, Seymour’s political career began at the age of 30 when, as a newly-elected Hartford probate court judge and captain of the Hartford Light Guard, he became editor of The Jeffersonian, a Democratic newspaper. In 1843, he served a single two-year term as a U.S. Congressman before declining his party’s nomination for reelection to focus on military interests. During the Mexican-American War, Seymour was a major in the 9th U.S. Infantry regiment and earned distinction at the 1847 Battle of Chapultepec. When the war ended, he was welcomed home as “the hero of Chapultepec,” and the politically-savvy Seymour rode his popularity straight into the Governor’s office, winning the first of four consecutive terms as Connecticut’s chief executive, beginning in 1850. (Until 1875, Connecticut governors were elected annually.)
In October of 1853, President Franklin Pierce, who had taken office earlier that year, chose the popular Connecticut governor as the new American minister to Russia. Seymour was eager to try his hand at diplomacy and formally resigned as Governor of Connecticut on October 15 to accept his new position, which he kept throughout Pierce’s one term presidency.
Returning to Connecticut in 1858, Seymour found the American political landscape had shifted and become more volatile, as tensions between northern and southern states neared the breaking point of Civil War. Following the start of hostilities in 1861, Seymour became an outspoken advocate for a peaceful reconciliation with the Southern states and a fierce critic of President Abraham Lincoln’s military strategies. Seymour, and northern Democrats like him, called themselves the “Peace Democrats,” but their critics preferred the term “Copperheads” — a reference to a poisonous snake found in Connecticut forests. “Copperhead” became a term Republicans closely associated with treason. While Civil War Connecticut was home to plenty of Southern sympathizers, there weren’t enough to vote Seymour back into political office during two failed gubernatorial campaigns in 1860 and 1863. After he tried in vain to obtain the national Democratic nomination for President in 1864, Seymour retired from politics and lived his final years in Hartford, where he died in 1868.
The full article from the CT Humanities Council can be found here.
|
|
Sullivan & LeShane, Inc.
www.ctlobby.com | (860) 560-0000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
