Connecticut House Bill HR00023

Connecticut 2019 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/20/19
• Refer: 3/21/19
• Refer: 4/11/19
• Report Pass: 4/15/19

Caption

Resolution Proposing Approval Of A Tentative Agreement Between The State Of Connecticut And The Administrative And Residual (p-5) Bargaining Unit.

Impact

The passage of HR00023 would have implications for labor relations within the state, specifically for employees represented by the Administrative and Residual (P-5) Bargaining Unit. It signals the state's commitment to honoring collective bargaining agreements and stabilizing the employment conditions for state tax attorneys. Such agreements typically encompass aspects like job classifications, wages, and other employment conditions, which can influence employee morale and retention rates among public sector workers.

Summary

House Resolution No. 23 proposes the approval of a tentative agreement between the State of Connecticut and the Administrative and Residual (P-5) Bargaining Unit concerning Tax Attorney classifications. This resolution was introduced to ratify the terms negotiated between the state and the bargaining unit, and it specifically addresses the classifications of employees who fall under this unit. By approving this agreement, the legislature recognizes the need to formalize the conditions of employment and classifications for state employees represented by the union.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding the bill appeared to be generally supportive among the legislators who voted in favor. With 84 yeas compared to 62 nays, the approval reflects a degree of bipartisan support for ensuring fair labor practices and recognition of the role of unions in state governance. However, the notable opposition might suggest concerns regarding budgetary implications or the treatment of various employment classifications, indicating a more complex sentiment among some lawmakers.

Contention

The primary contention around HR00023 likely stems from the balance between supporting union agreements and managing the state's budgetary constraints. Those opposed may question whether the classifications and agreements reflect the best use of state resources or if they could lead to inequities between different employee groups. As with many labor-related resolutions, discussions might also touch upon broader themes of public sector employment, fiscal responsibility, and the rights of state employees.