Pratt & Whitney & Ricci

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
My man Frank Ritchie who It's interesting to have heard
from you yesterday, Frank saying, Hey, I saw your commentary
on Pratt and Whitney an X. I'd love to come
on and talk about it. You're with the Yankee Institute.
The Yankee Institute's where I found out about the whole

(00:20):
this bizarre legislative idea in the first place, and I
thought it was you until I did a double I
look back at somebody else had penned the piece.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
Vinny. It's an honor to be on your show, and
your spot was perfect, and I want to bring this
back to New Haven. While I know you're across the
country in Connecticut, I'll still always know you as that
quintessential new Haven guide that everybody went to listening to
the radio in the firehouse every day to hear your

(00:56):
commentary about what was going on in New Haven. And
when this bill came up at this session, Centered Looney
from New Haven went before the Labor Committee and he
used the example of sitting at his kitchen table, sitting
at his kitchen table with his father and listening to

(01:17):
his father and mother make a decision whether to go
on strike at Winchester repeating firearms on Winchester Avenue in
the city. And his story was very moving about how
tough that decision is for whether you're a worker at
Winchester or whether you're a worker at Pratt Whitney or
eb or stopping shop for that matter. And he brought

(01:39):
it back to that family, you know, the family making
the hard decision. But at the end of all his
testimony and everything, he said, he left one part out, Winchester.
Isn't there anymore?

Speaker 1 (01:50):
Winchester's gone, Vinnie, Yeah, Yeah, my stepfather worked at Winchester
for his whole life. He went on strike that you know,
did the the whole kit, and he got the watch.
He got the Winchester watch. And that's actually literally, quite
literally what he got. And you're right, and it was

(02:10):
a sad day for him actually, because that was his
life's work.

Speaker 3 (02:14):
When he saw it close out, you know, go away, gone.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
For good, it was it was a sad day all
for Connecticut. You gotta remember, back in the war years,
Winchester hired up to fifteen to twenty thousand people, but
after the striking seventy nine they went down to eight
hundred people. By the nineteen nineties, it was. It was
down the one hundred and eighty seven. And you know,

(02:39):
when Winchester was at a tiny it hired people from
the neighborhood and the suburbs. And since Winchester has left,
that neighborhood has been plagued by crime, fires, drugs. And yes,
Yale revitalized Winchester Avenue and if you got your doctorate,
you could probably get a great job doing biotech and

(03:00):
a latte on Winchester Avaca. But that's only three blocks
in the city. The rest of the neighborhood is plagued
by drugs. And I just want to be real clear,
as somebody who was the union president, I'm not against
supporting striking workers. I walked the picket line with Sikorski
workers when they were trying to get better healthcare. As

(03:22):
matter of fact, Vinny, I took my kid out of
school and I had my kindergarten on my shoulder with
a sign saying New Haven firefighters support Sikorski workers. And
at that moment, Jimmy Hoffa junior called us up from
the very back of the crowd and signed my son's sign.
I still have the sign, and the Hertford Current wrote

(03:42):
a news story about it. I stood with stopping shop workers.
I'm okay with people supporting strikes. What I'm not okay
with is the government putting their hand on the scale
by mandating that they get paid with tax dollars or
unemployment dollars, their incentive advising labor unrest. And I'd like

(04:03):
your opinion on this because you're so in tune to
what's going on. I was thinking about this this morning
before I came on the show, and when I was
a kid, I remember politicians, the political class going to strikes,
but their main message was to get the parties back
to the table to negotiate. And now I see the

(04:25):
political class. They're not going there saying we need to
get back to the table, we need we need these
talks to continue. Now they seem to go there just
for a photo op to say we just stand with workers,
and it's almost like they encourage the labor unrest. We
want workers treated fairly, but we also need jobs and
manufacturing in Connecticut. There's a balance to the worker employer

(04:48):
relationship and government has no role in that other than
trying to get the parties together.

Speaker 3 (04:54):
That's well said.

Speaker 1 (04:56):
I what I tried to understand too from the article, Frank,
it was framed as there is a bill, there is
a Connecticut officials pushing a bill to fund strikers with
taxpayer money. And yet I started getting hit from people
who are like, it would just be unemployment, which obviously

(05:17):
begs the question. But they're not unemployed. They're on strike,
and there is a huge difference really between those two things.
They're striking because they're that invested in the job that
they have, so they're not really unemployed. But I'm trying
to I want to make sure I've got it right.
Are we talking is the move here just after two

(05:38):
weeks we want them to be able to file for unemployment?
Or is there an actual bill where strike strikers, those
on strike would be funded by taxpayer dollars, by our
dollars or is that more you're gonna say, Vin, Ultimately,
that's what unemployment is. I was always of the belief
unemployment that's what the business they're is that just let

(06:00):
you go.

Speaker 3 (06:01):
They're footing that bill.

Speaker 2 (06:04):
Oky, Vinnie, that's a great question, and it's a two
part answer.

Speaker 1 (06:08):
I'm it is because I asked it convoluted, But it's
been dogging me for days.

Speaker 2 (06:13):
No, No, I'll clear this all up for you. So
there's there's two parts to this one. No piece of
legislation is ever complete in Connecticut until the last day
of the session. So to give you an example, I
don't even I don't even remember what the bill was.
But just this week they were debating a bill that
was thirty pages and then when it got on the floor,

(06:35):
it was ninety three pages. Oh yeah, so bills changed. Now,
this bill for striking workers has changed over the years.
Last year it wasn't taking the money from unemployment. It
was creating a special taxpayer fund. And Governor Lamont had
the courage to veto the bill.

Speaker 3 (06:56):
Yes, SAWDAYA.

Speaker 2 (06:57):
Now surprised by that, I mean, you gotta have business.
We need jobs, and can you Connecticut. We need to
be a little bit more business friendly, not a lot
more business friendly in Connecticut so we can grow. So
what happened there is he didn't want to take it
out of that fund. Now it's come back and they're

(07:17):
staying unemployment. But I think you were right. When you
require an employer to pay out of their unemployment fund,
it increases their unemployment cost. The states often put money
into it like we saw in COVID. But also it
affects take a construction company when their unemployment costs are
high and they have to pay into their unemployment fund,

(07:40):
that goes into the bidding process. So any municipal project,
any state construction projects, the expense goes up exponentially, so
the taxpayers in the end end up paying for it.
And the proof of this is Governor News from California
had the same bill before his desk in twenty twenty

(08:02):
three that was taking the money out of unemployment. But
he knew that it would hurt business and in the
end it would come out of taxpayers pockets regardless of
how it was paid, whether it was secondary effects of
you know, the project of a construction project or chasing
business out of California. He vetoed the bill. So we

(08:23):
really need ned Lamont to have the courage to veto
this when it comes up, or the legislature to stop
this before it comes up. We just want business and
workers treated fairly. This is not the role of government.

Speaker 1 (08:39):
You know, I just got a message while you're doing
your thing, Frank, from someone saying union strikes help everyone.
When the union strikes to improve their benefits, it makes
non union shops improve theirs.

Speaker 3 (08:49):
You both hate workers?

Speaker 1 (08:51):
Well, I don't even understand the ending to that. That's
what I contend with doing talking, you know, doing morning graded.
Why do we any hate working? I want to see
more workers. What there's the the people I work with work?

Speaker 3 (09:03):
I love workers.

Speaker 2 (09:04):
Yeah, I was a union rep for six I was
a union rep for sixteen years. I love workers. I
have benefits. Yes, union, when a union gets good wages,
it does help out the private sector, I absolutely. But
there's a balance, and there's a tipping point. And Winchester
is that perfect example. Yes, it got to the point
where the business the business climate was so bad. Instead

(09:28):
of twenty three hundred jobs, eight hundred jobs, or even
one hundred and eighty seven jobs, who did that help it? Basically?
It basically took an institution out of New Haven. And
in twenty twenty three, a stopping shop worker testified before
the Connecticut legislature and said that if we had these benefits,
we would have stayed on strike longer. Now here's the

(09:50):
thing about the unions. If the unions are concerned about
their workers, as they should be, and union members pay
a lot of they're hard money and dues. The union
should have a proper strike fund to pay the workers.
But the union see this as a gravy train. They
see this as wait a second, we don't have to

(10:12):
take and create a big strike fund to help our
workers buy groceries and prolong a strike. We could take
all that money and put it in the politics. That's
going to take more money out of your pocket. So
it's not a worker employer issue. This is about the
state legislature in Hartford trying to make decisions for everybody,

(10:33):
and what we see all the time is unintended consequences.
There's no greater example than Winchester, because that's what Senator
Looney and all the Democrats need to be rallying upon.
Chris Maddison out of tweet. You know, my family was
on strike wa at Winchester at some time something like that.
But everybody's leaving out the thing. Yeah, all those jobs
are gone. So how did that help anybody in that
neighborhood or in the state for that matter.

Speaker 1 (10:56):
Yeah, you had just said about a minute back there,
and again we're on with Frank Ritchie with the Yankee Institute.
Now local legend. If anybody knows anything about unions it
would be, and firefighters would be. Frank, Ritchie, you just
said a mouthful about a minute back there, because I
was wondering as far as this idea is concerned, it's
only politicians behind it.

Speaker 3 (11:17):
One.

Speaker 1 (11:17):
I can't imagine the workers. They might be glad, okay,
we could strike longer. They ultimately they want to strike over.
They want to get back to their pretty good salary
at Pratt and Whitney and hopefully get some of the
things they're at the table for. And I would imagine
management wants they don't want to strike on going either.

Speaker 3 (11:37):
So am I right to assume? Frank?

Speaker 1 (11:39):
This is politicians inserting themselves into something neither part one management,
the owners don't want. They're like go away, and the
workers are like go away.

Speaker 3 (11:52):
No. Or do you think one side might like the
idea of it?

Speaker 1 (11:56):
No?

Speaker 2 (11:56):
I think you're one hundred percent right. But you'll see
a lot of reps individuals that are on the executive
ball them.

Speaker 3 (12:03):
Yeah, I'm getting blown off.

Speaker 2 (12:05):
Testify testify for this, but you don't hear from the
rank and file. And if this was so needed, so needed, Bennie,
you wouldn't have scene Pratt Whitney just voted for a TA.
The nursing strike was just averted, so you know it
is working in Connecta. I've seen companies where they're saying, Hey,
the companies coming to the table, eb, look, we got

(12:26):
a raise. We're doing this. We're moving in the right direction.
That allows both parties to balance their interest at the
bargaining table. That's where it should occur, right there at
the manufacturer, not in Harford where legislators have no clue
of the nuances or the complexity of what happens in
collective bars. I'm all for supporting workers, but I'm not

(12:48):
for supporting the state mandating unemployment or taking out taking
it out of another taxpayer fund.

Speaker 1 (12:55):
Yeah, here's another gem for Frank Richie and I. I just
got hit with this one. So you both would rather
your taxes go towards the willingly unemployed then the working
class who pays those same taxes. You're making a bigger
liberal statement than the actual law being put in place.
One there's no law being put in place, And no,

(13:16):
I wouldn't rather that. I don't even know what some
people are convincing themselves of.

Speaker 2 (13:21):
Yeah, I want to you know, we want we want
a vibrant economy. We want everybody to be able to
prosper in Connecticut, you know, Vinny. We want people to
be able to work, live and retire in Connecticut and
keep their families here. We love Connecticut. We want a
vibrant economy for everybody. We don't want to tip the

(13:42):
scale and chase companies out. We don't want an Amazon
or even a bigger company to come in and say,
you know what, let's just put this warehouse in Rhode
Island instead of putting it in Connecticut. We want jobs
in Connecticut.