On the same day that 3,000 machinists at Pratt and Whitney returned to work, the Connecticut Senate approved a controversial bill extending unemployment pay to striking workers.

The vote sets up a showdown with Gov. Ned Lamont, who vetoed similar legislation last year – and is pledging to do it again.

Pratt and Whitney workers will receive a 15.5% raise over the next four years as part of a new contract. The company also agreed to keep its plants in Middletown and East Hartford open through at least 2029.

But it took three weeks to reach a deal.

The longer the strike dragged on, the more pressure workers felt to compromise.

“I feel like a lot of the employees did feel rushed to go back,” says Kirby Boyce, a veteran machinist at Pratt and Whitney. “Being out for three weeks was definitely a long time, a lot of time for our folks.”

Boyce spent Wednesday in Hartford, urging state senators to pass a bill giving striking workers unemployment pay.

“The stress that comes from standing on a picket line and not knowing whether or not you’re going to be able to pay your bills, put food on the table,” says Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk).

The bill would let workers collect unemployment after 14 consecutive days on the picket line. If the company declares a lockout, workers could get paid immediately.

Currently only three states, including New York and New Jersey, have a similar law. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the idea in 2023.

Republicans say the law will drive major employers out of Connecticut.

“We already have an extremely anti-business climate here,” says Senate GOP leader Stephen Harding (R-Brookfield). “I don’t need to tell anyone that; we know that already.”

Business groups say that paying workers on strike will mean higher unemployment insurance costs – and unfairly tip the scales in labor negotiations.

“We should not be doing collective bargaining underneath the gold dome,” says state Sen. Eric Berthel (R-Watertown). “Collective bargaining is something that happens between an employer and its union members.”

Wednesday’s vote sets up a showdown with Lamont, who vetoed a similar bill last year – and promised to do the same this year.

“I don't support that. I support the right to organize; I support the right to strike. I don't support paying striking workers,” he told News 12 Connecticut on Wednesday. “If private insurance wanted to come up with some sort of a package that would allow these people some protection, that’s up to them. I wouldn’t stand in the way of that.”

Labor unions blasted the governor’s stance.

“Gov. Lamont has once again sided with corporate CEOs over the hardworking people of Connecticut,” says Connecticut AFL-CIO president Ed Hawthorne. “Protecting working people in our state has only become more urgent since the Trump Administration has gutted the NLRB and severely weakened the ability to enforce existing worker protections.”

Had Lamont signed last year’s bill, Kirby says that a Pratt and Whitney strike might not have happened in the first place.

“Because the first tactic companies usually use is, they try to ‘starve you out.’ So what they do is, they know you’re not getting any income, so they just let you wait it out as long as possible,” he says. “Today the stakes are even higher, and it’s more now important than ever to make sure this legislation is passed.”

Despite Lamont’s veto threat and a potentially lengthy floor debate, Connecticut House Speaker Matt Ritter says he will put the striking worker bill up for a vote before the General Assembly session adjourns next Wednesday.

The bill could become law even without Lamont’s support because Democrats have veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate. But supporters would need almost all Democrats to vote for an override.