Connecticut lawmakers are pushing to expand unemployment benefits to striking workers, regulate self-checkout machines, and create a climate \u201csuperfund\u201d to extract billions from fossil fuel companies.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Bold ideas \u2014 except California already tried all of them. And even Gov. Gavin Newsom said no.\u00a0<\/p>\n
For years, California has served as the nation\u2019s policy laboratory. Other states often watch to see which progressive experiments succeed, and which quietly collapse under fiscal pressure, legal uncertainty, or political reality.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Now Hartford appears ready to rerun several of those failed experiments.\u00a0<\/p>\n
California has nearly 40 million residents, a Democratic supermajority, and a governor who has built his national profile on ambitious progressive policy. If legislation can\u2019t survive there, it\u2019s rarely because the politics weren\u2019t favorable. More often, it\u2019s because the math didn\u2019t work \u2014 or the consequences proved harder to defend than the slogans.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Connecticut lawmakers are now attempting to revive those same proposals.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Unemployment Benefits for Striking Workers\u00a0<\/p>\n
The clearest example is unemployment insurance.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Under current law, workers who go on strike are ineligible for unemployment benefits. The reasoning is straightforward: unemployment insurance is designed to support workers who lose their jobs involuntarily and are actively seeking new work. Striking workers still have jobs \u2014 they have chosen to withhold their labor as a bargaining strategy.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Connecticut\u2019s SB 440<\/a> would change that by allowing workers on strike for at least two weeks to collect unemployment benefits.\u00a0<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t new territory. A similar bill passed the Connecticut legislature last year before Gov. Ned Lamont vetoed it in June 2025, citing concerns about economic impact and job growth. He vetoed a nearly identical proposal the year before.\u00a0<\/p>\n California tried<\/a> the same thing in 2023. Lawmakers passed SB 799<\/a>, which would have allowed striking workers to collect benefits after a two-week waiting period. Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected it, warning that the state\u2019s unemployment insurance system \u2014 nearly $20 billion in debt to the federal government \u2014 could not sustain the expansion.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0Connecticut\u2019s unemployment system has faced its own financial pressures in recent years. The fiscal concerns that stopped the policy in California apply here as well.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Self-Checkout Fight\u00a0<\/p>\n Then there\u2019s the grocery store bill.\u00a0<\/p>\n Connecticut\u2019s SB 438<\/a> would limit the number of self-checkout machines a single employee can oversee, cap total machines at eight per store, and impose minimum staffing requirements whenever automated checkout is in use.\u00a0<\/p>\n The intent is to preserve cashier jobs. The effect would be to regulate how private retailers deploy technology inside their own stores.\u00a0<\/p>\n California considered<\/a> a nearly identical measure in 2024. It moved through committee but stalled before reaching the governor\u2019s desk. Even in a state known for aggressive regulation of business, lawmakers ultimately declined to push it across the finish line.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Climate Superfund Debate\u00a0<\/p>\n Connecticut is also considering a climate \u201csuperfund<\/a>\u201d bill that would require large fossil fuel companies to pay for climate-related damages based on their share of historical global emissions.\u00a0<\/p>\n The pitch is simple: make polluters pay instead of taxpayers.\u00a0<\/p>\n California has been trying to pass the same idea for years. It keeps failing.\u00a0<\/p>\n