RTX: Striking Workers Bill ‘Exacerbates’ State’s Labor Challenges

The following letter was sent May 29 by RTX Corporation to members of the Connecticut House of Representatives. It is posted here with permission.

---

Dear Representatives,

I am writing to express RTX Corporation’s strong opposition to SB 8, AN ACT CONCERNING PROTECTIONS FOR WORKERS AND ENHANCEMENTS TO WORKERS’ RIGHTS. We opposed this bill last year and continue to have grave concerns with this year’s bill. 

RTX employs over 4,300 union-represented employees at its Pratt & Whitney and Collins Aerospace Connecticut operations in East Hartford, Middletown, Windsor Locks, and Cheshire. Virtually all RTX Connecticut hourly employees are represented by a union and covered by one of six collective bargaining agreements.

Under the terms of its newly-ratified contract with the International Association of Machinists, Pratt & Whitney union-represented Connecticut employees’ median base pay is now over $51 an hour, an increase of over 26% in the last five years. Employees will see their pay increase to over $57 an hour by the end of the new, four-year contract. With voluntary overtime and other premiums, the typical Pratt union-represented employee in Connecticut likely will see annual earnings this year of over $140,000. The new contract also provides improvements in retirement benefits, while leaving competitive health and welfare benefits unchanged.

"I don't like the striking workers bill and I'm not going to support it," Gov. Ned Lamont tells reporters. "If you want to make sure this is a state that grows and adds good-paying jobs for people, I don't think the striking workers bill is the way to go." https://t.co/poTOSBqLmu pic.twitter.com/PtH1I9dTDd

— CBIA (@CBIANews) May 30, 2025

In sum, this new contract ensures RTX Connecticut union-represented employees remain among the highest paid aerospace and defense production workers in the U.S., with annual individual income above both U.S. and Connecticut median household income, and strong benefits packages. Indeed, even after headline-grabbing pay increases of industry peers, most notably Boeing, RTX union-represented employees remain at the top of the industry.

This didn’t happen by accident: It’s the result of decades of collective bargaining between RTX companies and their unions. These negotiations have always been conducted under the federal framework created by the National Labor Relations Act, which carefully balances the respective interests and leverages of workers acting collectively and employers, to drive mutually beneficial outcomes while minimizing risk to economic activity. One of those leverages is the right to strike. Employees collectively leverage the right to withhold their labor to secure better agreements. Their collective leverage, however, is not unlimited: It is balanced by the personal economic loss of a strike. Strikes, therefore, are rare.  Including the just-concluded three-week Pratt strike, RTX has only had four Connecticut strikes in the last 25 years, totaling 10 weeks.

Paying employees who refuse to work during a strike would significantly skew this balancing of leverages: Having nothing to lose, employees are incentivized to hold out for an even “better” deal. Such a significant skewing of the parties’ respective leverages would yield unsustainable labor contracts for Connecticut manufacturers, further exacerbating their existing Connecticut labor challenges and rendering other states more viable options for future work—ultimately putting at risk the very people whom this legislation is ostensibly intended to protect.

The just-completed Pratt strike underscores this. Pratt employees rejected Pratt’s original contract offer—an offer that was carefully calibrated to ensure that Pratt’s Connecticut employees remain among the highest paid in the industry while allowing Pratt to continue to satisfy its customers in this highly competitive industry. After a three-week strike, employees ratified Pratt’s new offer, which featured some rearranged terms, but nevertheless was of no greater proportional value than Pratt’s prior offer.

This bill is terrible public policy. While workers have the right to organize, bargain collectively, and strike, those rights should not be subsidized by employers—nor, as in the case of a similar bill that the governor vetoed last year, by taxpayers. https://t.co/Alt3spB3XK

— Chris DiPentima (@ChrisDipentima) May 29, 2025

And what would have happened if striking employees were receiving taxpayer-funded compensation while they were striking? It’s reasonable to assume employees would have withheld their labor much longer, holding out for a more valuable offer from Pratt. And what would Pratt have done? Unable to increase its prior offer without negative business consequences, it’s reasonable to assume Pratt would have been forced to explore other options for meeting customer commitments—none of which would have been good for the striking employees and their future job security, not to mention the vast Connecticut ecosystem of suppliers and others economically dependent upon Pratt’s operations.  Meanwhile, ongoing payments to 3,000 striking employees would have imposed further strain on Connecticut’s already stressed budget. All taxpayers—not just businesses with union workforces—would bear the brunt.

It’s no wonder, therefore, that only three states—New York, New Jersey and Washington—allow striking employees to receive state benefits, while California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed similar legislation.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that you vote No on SB 8. 

Sincerely,

Peter Holland
Vice President, State & Local Government Relations
RTX Corporation

---

SB 8 passed the state Senate May 28 and is currently awaiting action in the state House. For more information, contact CBIA’s Paul Amarone (860.244.1978).