Connecticut Legislature Overrides Rell’s Veto of Minimum Wage Increase

The Hartford Courant reported today that the Connecticut General Assembly voted to override Governor Rell’s earlier veto of an increase in the Connecticut minimum wage.  Our minimum wage, one of the highest in the country, will now increase from $7.65 per hour to $8.00 per hour on January 1, 2009.  It will increase to $8.25 per hour on January 1, 2010.  This law is great news for the approximately 65,000 Connecticut workers who earn the minimum wage.  Governor Rell and the Republicans argued that increasing the minimum wage would cost Connecticut jobs.  This writer couldn’t disagree more.  If this argument (which by the way the Republicans make every time an increase is proposed) were successful, the minimum wage would never go up.

Christine Stuart of CT News Junkie reported, “After the vote in the Senate, Caliguiri said he met with the governor on Friday to inform her of his decision to vote against her veto. ‘I’ve taken a hard look at the data and I could not conclude that increasing the minimum wage would result in decreases in jobs.’”

Furthermore, Rell’s claim that this law will mainly affect college students and young adults is flawed for two reasons.  First, the minimum wage affects more workers than just those.  Second, this argument seems to trivialize the interests of young adults and college students.

If you earn the minimum wage, you should make sure that your employer gives you a raise on January 1.  Employers frequently fail to keep up with minimum wage increases.  Restaurant servers who earn the tip credit minimum wage will have their pay increased to $5.52 per hour.

OK to transfer former violent boyfriend to female employee’s department, Connecticut Supreme Court says.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has issued a ruling which will undoubtedly cause female employees concern.  In State of Connecticut v. Connecticut State Employees Association, SEIU Local 2001, 2008 WL 2220393 (Conn.), our Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of an arbitrator which resulted in the transfer of a violent former boyfriend to the department of his ex-girlfriend, over her objection.  The technical holding of the case involves the standard of review of trial court rulings affirming arbitration awards and will no doubt be used in the future for that purpose.  The factual holding, however, is the one that makes me scratch my head.  A male employee of the Department of Corrections sought a transfer to a department where his former girlfriend worked.  She objected indicating that he had been violent towards her in the past, so much so that a restraining order had been issued against him.  The State honored her request and denied his transfer.  He filed a grievance and the arbitrator ordered the State to award him the job.  The award indicated that the violence was more than ten years ago and that there had been no further instances between them.  Since I am not a labor lawyer, I can’t provide expert analysis of this opinion.  I will say that it will make claims by women in sexual harassment suits that their harassers be fired or transferred away from them more difficult.