Conn. State Police contract: House approves raises for troopers
The Connecticut State Capitol on Jan. 7, 2025. (Photo by Shahrzad Rasekh/CT Mirror)
HARTFORD, Conn. — The House of Representatives on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a proposal that would grant Connecticut State Police troopers a 2.5% general wage hike and a step increase next fiscal year.
The proposal, which is also expected to win approval in the Senate, passed 134-12 in the Democratic-controlled House, enjoying bipartisan support despite objections from GOP leaders.
Legislators from both parties have lamented a state police force that's now about 25% smaller than the 1,200-plus troopers who served Connecticut prior to 2010.
Democrats said the raises, which would affect an estimated 885 troopers, are essential to recruitment efforts.
But both House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, and Rep. Tammy Nuccio, R-Tolland, argued against the raises.
'We're facing a collision course with a rather ugly truth' — that state employee compensation is becoming unsustainable, said Nuccio, who is the ranking House Republican on the Appropriations Committee.
Nearly all unionized workers have received a 2.5% general wage hike and a step, which typically adds another 2 percentage points to the raise, each fiscal year since 2021-22.
Gov. Ned Lamont's administration, which negotiated the wage deal with the troopers, also is bargaining new contracts with all other major state employee unions. And it would be difficult for state officials to convince labor arbiters that Connecticut could not afford effective 4.5% annual increases for other state employees if the legislature approves one for troopers.
The House GOP proposed a $54.4 billion biennial budget earlier this month that counts on more than $300 million in savings over the next two fiscal years by freezing pay for all workers.
Candelora said troopers earn an average of $116,000 per year in base pay, but compensation rises to $175,000 per year once overtime is considered.
'There's no amount of pay that's going to be able to recruit more officers,' he said.
The solution, Candelora added, involves criminal justice reforms that give officers greater legal protection when performing searches or pulling over motorists on the highway.
'What they really need is our support,' he said. 'They need real criminal justice reform.'
Despite Nuccio and Candelora's arguments, 35 of the 47 Republicans who cast ballots in Tuesday's joined 99 Democrats in supporting the raises.
Andrew Matthews, executive director of the state police union and a former president, noted before a legislative panel earlier this month that union concessions packages have weakened retirement benefits for troopers.
Before 2011, a trooper was eligible for a hazardous duty pension based on the three highest annual salaries of a minimum 20 years of service.
Now Connecticut requires 25 years of service that offers a hybrid pension/401(k) benefit calculated on average wages over the entire 25-year span.
But Matthews also said workers deserve the raises in the deal and more.
'It's a dangerous job,' he said at the time, adding that 26 troopers have died in the line of duty and that post-traumatic stress injuries are 'a real thing' many troopers face.
The legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis estimated the agreement would cost state government nearly $4.1 million next fiscal year. Municipalities that participate in the resident state trooper program would collectively incur an added cost of $301,675 next fiscal year, nonpartisan analysts estimated.
This article first appeared on CT Mirror and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Iran Strikes Risk Dividing GOP at Crucial Time for Trump Agenda
By and Steven T. Dennis Save Donald Trump's unilateral decision to strike Iran's key nuclear sites on Saturday notably sidelined Congress just as he needs Republicans lawmakers to unite around one thing he can't do without them: Pass his legislative agenda. Senate Republicans are still planning to move ahead this week with votes on Trump's massive tax and spending bill, Stacey Daniels, a spokeswoman for Majority Leader John Thune, said Sunday.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next
President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Here are five big questions. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press-TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely-discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox Sunday Futures. 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with non-interventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd changed 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, retweeted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal non-nuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously has been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israel attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East War. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider-in-chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Hits Back at Republican Thomas Massie: 'Not MAGA'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump launched a scathing attack on Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, declaring the Republican congressman is "not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is" on Truth Social following Massie's criticism of U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Newsweek reached out to Massie's office via email on Sunday for comment. What It Matters Trump on Saturday evening announced what he described as a "very successful attack" against three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan The president's decision came after Israel and Iran have exchanged consistent strikes since June 13. Israel had urged the U.S. to target Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that Tehran was moving close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons. Taking to X, formerly Twitter, after Trump announced the strikes, Massie said, "This is not Constitutional." The strikes have sparked concerns from some Democrats and some Republicans about a wider war breaking out—with some lawmakers accusing the president of violating the U.S. Constitution with the strikes. What To Know Massie and Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution last Tuesday in a bid to curb Trump's ability to escalate tensions with Iran. "The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked the United States," Massie said in a press release announcing the resolution. "Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution." Massie invited participation from lawmakers across the aisle, underscoring bipartisan concern about unauthorized military actions, Newsweek previously reported. Khanna quickly co-sponsored the measure and publicly called for Congress to reconvene and vote. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution," Khanna said in a press release. "Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," Khanna added. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." The resolution has garnered support from over 40 House members, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Pramila Jayapal. MAGA (Make America Great Again) supporter Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, has even signaled support, emphasizing on X that Americans want domestic priorities addressed "not going into another foreign war." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, endorsed a companion resolution introduced by Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, stating "No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy." House Minority Whip Katherine Clark stated: "The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional." The list remains heavily Democrat, though more Republicans may break with the party in the coming days as the aftermath of Trump's military strikes continue to play out. Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, arrives to speak to the press outside the US Capitol. Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, arrives to speak to the press outside the US Capitol. ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Sunday: "Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes "NO," no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded "grandstander" who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling "DEATH TO AMERICA" at every chance they get." He added: "Iran has killed and maimed thousands of Americans, and even took over the American Embassy in Tehran under the Carter Administration. We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the "bomb" right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!) but, as usual, and despite all of the praise and accolades received, this "lightweight" Congressman is against what was so brilliantly achieved last night in Iran. Massie is weak, ineffective, and votes "NO" on virtually everything put before him (Rand Paul, Jr.), no matter how good something may be. He is disrespectful to our great military, and all that they stand for, not even acknowledging their brilliance and bravery in yesterday's attack, which was a total and complete WIN. Massie should drop his fake act and start putting America First, but he doesn't know how to get there — he doesn't have a clue!" Trump concluded: "He'll undoubtedly vote against the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill, even though non-passage means a 68% Tax Increase for everybody, and many things far worse than that. MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague! The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard. MAGA is not about lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive politicians, of which Thomas Massie is definitely one. Thank you to our incredible military for the AMAZING job they did last night. It was really SPECIAL!!! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." Representative Thomas Massie on X, formerly Twitter on Sunday: "I introduced a War Powers Resolution on Tuesday, while Congress was on vacation. We would have had plenty of time to debate and vote on this." What Happens Next? The House War Powers Resolution is scheduled for a mandatory floor vote within 15 days under the chamber's rules.
