We heard the age-old stricture “do no harm” over and over again during the session that ended last night. For the most part lawmakers were able to avoid harm, but they sure came close.

First the harm. Both chambers adopted a not-well-thought-out bill to open up the state health plan to municipalities and small businesses. We put out a news release listing ten reasons why it’s a bad idea. We hope the Governor vetoes the bill, if for no other reason than because it will likely increase costs for the state.

The timing of the bill to raise the state minimum wage in each of the next two years is inopportune given the current problems with our economy. At last report the Governor is unsure whether or not she will sign it into law.

As far as not doing harm, the legislature ultimately rejected virtually all other harmful business bills. The bill that would have made Connecticut the first state in the nation to adopt a mandated paid sick leave policy on employers probably got more attention from CBIA members than any other bill. Although it passed the state Senate, the bill died in the House. The rest of the Labor and Public Employees Committee agenda targeted at business also went down to defeat.

Lawmakers and the Governor also did no harm on fiscal matters. They made no adjustments to the second year of the two-year budget (which already includes a 4.4% increase) and raised no taxes. A $67 million deficit is projected for the current fiscal year ending June 30, 2008, but that can be managed by the Governor through her executive authority. The legislature may come back if the problem gets significantly worse.

What was really lacking was any clear focus on economic issues. There was recognition that times are tough and spending had to be controlled, but little or no attention to making sure that Connecticut’s economic recovery is robust and sustained. Certain Democratic leaders were more intent on moving union-backed agendas that ostensibly helped business but did little or nothing to actually grow our economy or make our businesses more competitive. We will continue to press legislators to make the economy their top priority.

Finally, thanks to Gov. Rell and all the legislators on both sides of the aisle who worked to strengthen rather than weaken our economic competitiveness. Thanks also to all CBIA members who took the time to communicate with their elected representatives on these important bills. Keep up the good work.

I try hard not to be redundant in these posts, but that has been difficult in the last few weeks of the legislative session. The recurring themes of the economy, the business climate and negative bills like paid sick leave and health care pooling won’t let go.

But here we go again. The health care pooling bill passed the Senate in the early hours this morning and is now on its way to the Governor. And the paid sick leave bill is scheduled to go in the House today, and if passed will also move to the Governor. These two actions should be a wake up call for the Connecticut business community.

Instead of rehashing the problems with these bills, you can read about them here, here, here and here. The bottom line is that things have changed at the Capitol in Hartford, and bills that used to die on the calendar are now passing. The voices of advocates for bills that would raise business costs, add new employer mandates and move state government in directions it need not go simply are louder than business voices right now.

The economic competitiveness of the state and of individual businesses is going to be severely tested if those business voices do not increase dramatically. Legislators need some economic education from employers in their districts, and they need it soon. CBIA members will be contacted regarding this over the next few months. We have to make sure that legislators are listening to business on business issues, rather than state employee unions and other interest groups. With the session ending, fortunately, at midnight tonight, we can hopefully get out with no further damage. But the next session is only nine months away, and the business community better be prepared.

Two days left in the General Assembly session, with adjournment coming at midnight tomorrow.

Things are moving slowly, with the decision by Gov. Rell and Democratic leaders to make no changes to the second year of the biennial budget putting many pieces of legislation off the table. The Governor has been strong in saying that she will not approve bills that have a fiscal impact and have not been accounted for in the budget.

We hope that the legislature heeds the Governor’s message and does not act on several bills that would not only have a fiscal impact but would also harm the state’s business climate, something that should also be off the table in these tough economic times. These include the paid sick leave bill, the health care pooling bill, the 401k bill and several harmful workers’ compensation bills.

The health care pooling bill may go in the Senate today. It has already passed the House and could be on its way to the Governor. Here’s our radio ad concerning the bill.

For some reason many legislators are listening to the state-employee unions and other non-business parties on business issues. One is the paid sick leave bill. Unions and their allies are saying that this bill is needed to increase productivity because too many sick people are showing up for work and not being productive. In the twenty years I have been at CBIA I have never had one business person raise that as an issue. Should legislators actually investigate this great productivity gain with the state’s employers, or just listen to the advocates of the bill?

Another is the so-called health care pooling bill. The state employee unions are the main advocates of a bill to open up the state health care plan to small businesses and municipalities. The small businesses I talk to are alarmed about the health care costs of government and are clearly not clamoring to spend a like amount for their health insurance. But the state employee unions want to move this forward for their own reasons. Again, where is the study of whether or not this is a good idea?

Many of the same people are supporting the bill to allow the state to sell 401k retirement plans to small businesses. Again, the vast majority of businesses are not asking for this. But some interest groups and legislators think the state can do a better job than business in selling and administering these products. That really sends a great message to the business community in Connecticut.

The business community clearly isn’t of one mind on everything, and there are divergent opinions on a variety of issues. And I’m sure there are some businesses who think it’s a good idea to buy into the state health plan, at least until they see the cost. But on some fundamental issues, such as a belief in the ability of the private sector to do its job well, I think employers are pretty united. They believe that state government can help facilitate their success through policies that allow them to be competitive, but it shouldn’t become their competition. We hope the legislature listens to businesspeople on business issues in the waning days of the session rather than those who truly do not have the best interest of business at heart.

After having survived the Appropriations Committee on a close vote, the paid sick leave bill passed the state Senate last night on a 20-16 vote. The bill now goes to the House of Representatives.

We are hearing more from our members about this bill than just about any other one this session. They see it as yet another attempt by state government to micromanage their businesses and to act as a collective bargaining agent for nonunionized employees. Although this type of intervention into employer-employee relations is not a good idea at any time, it is particularly troubling as our economy slows and more and more businesses struggle to survive.

As we have said often in the past, Connecticut employers are among the best in the nation at providing good wages and benefits. Listening to some of the debate in the Senate, however, would make you think that all employees are oppressed and work in sweat shops. It is part of a continuing and disturbing trend at the state legislature, fueled largely by organized labor (particularly public sector unions), to paint employers as the enemy, people who do not care about employees and do not treat them well.

We remain hopeful that more reasoned minds in the House will stop this bill and not send yet another negative message to business in Connecticut.

It’s always an interesting time of year to talk to our members about the legislature and its activities. We work hard to engage them in the legislative process, and to understand the importance of communicating with their local legislators. They want to see elected officials focus on creating a climate that will foster a strong economy, one that will provide greater opportunity and sustain our good quality of life.

It’s interesting because it’s the time of year when we’re embroiled in several battles over controversial legislative initiatives. Many of our members are incredulous that the General Assembly would spend time on things that may look good on their face but do nothing to move the state forward. In fact, they believe that in many cases these initiatives would slow progress in Connecticut.

Three examples are most prominent this session. One is the paid sick leave bill. Our members have been vocal in saying that state government should not insert itself in the role of bargaining for employees. Companies work out the best benefit packages they can given the limitations of their business, and once we start mandating things like sick time or vacation time, Connecticut becomes a less attractive place to operate and the state is ultimately the loser.

The second measure is the so-called health insurance pooling bill. Most companies I talk to think the legislature is wasting its time in making the state health insurance plan available to small businesses. They can’t imagine that any small firm would be able to afford the extremely rich benefits offered to state employees. They also question why the legislature would put at risk the current bids from insurers regarding the state plan. Two of three health plans have already said that they would re-rate their bids if the pool they originally bid on changes. Millions of dollars could be at risk, but many in the legislature don’t seem to care.

The third bill also would put state government where it doesn’t need to be. It would allow the state Comptroller to hire a third party administer to offer retirement plans to small businesses. But the state can’t really offer any advantage here. The biggest barrier to small firms having retirement plans for their employees is the cost of the employer match. Having the state involved adds nothing. The state can even recoup administrative fees from anyone who signs up, which will cost the employer. Many businesspeople resent state government getting into a business that is already being served by the private marketplace, particularly when there is no real positive role for the state to play.

None of these bills help create the kind of pro-growth, pro-jobs climate that business leaders are looking for. They continue the recent troubling trend of either micromanaging the private sector or moving into direct competition with it. Neither is the path to a strong and robust economy that can weather the current downturn and grow stronger through its recovery.

As usual, there is an awful lot of rhetoric flying around the Capitol. A lot of it has to do with the proposal by the House Majority Leader to open up the state employee health care plan to municipalities and small businesses (the bill passed the House last night). Also very much as usual, we are being criticized for opposing the bill on the grounds that CBIA administers a health care plan for small businesses and we don’t want competition from the state.

We always acknowledge that we have a Service Corporation that markets and administers a health plan. As a matter of fact, the program that CBIA has built is well-respected nationally but has not been replicated successfully anywhere. (It’s rather funny that what is seen as such a great idea by policymakers in other states is somehow viewed as a bad thing by some policymakers in our own state.)

From a policy standpoint, we have always put the interests of our membership over any other interest. The same is true in this case. The problem, as always, is in the details. The state plan was sold to municipalities as something that would save them money in their health insurance costs. But comparisons that were made did not appear to be between similar plans. For example, it has been said that the city of Danbury would save $2.8 million by switching to the state plan. However, when the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) did an analysis and compared Danbury’s costs with those of the state plan that most closely matches its current benefit levels they found that costs would increase between $2.8 million to $4.4 million.

From the small business perspective, it’s hard to imagine any company saving money by moving into the very rich state benefit plan. We would all like to have the same benefits state employees have, but most can’t afford it. This proposal does nothing to help reduce the cost of health care, and frankly holds out false hope. The argument that simply adding more people to the state plan will help drive down costs just doesn’t wash. The cost of care is going up, and this isn’t the solution.

Another reason we oppose the bill is that two of the three health plans that recently bid on the state business have said that they will immediately re-rate their bids if this bill passes, because the pool on which they bid has changed. The other health plan said they would re-rate their bid after one year. This could mean additional costs to the state, according to OPM.

Another reason to oppose the bill is because the state currently doesn’t come close to meeting its own obligations regarding health care. The unfunded liability for state employee and retiree health care is almost $22 billion. And every year the state underfunds Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals by over $300 million. If state government is not meeting its own obligations, why would we want to add to its liability?

Proponents also say that this is the first step to single payer health insurance. That alone should be reason enough for the Senate to vote against it.

The bill that would add yet another mandate onto Connecticut employers barely passed the Appropriations Committee earlier today on a 25-23 vote. The committee is not our best in the legislature when it comes to killing a bill, so the closeness of the vote is encouraging.

This bill, although it is being touted as being up there with Motherhood and apple pie, would mandate that every employer of 25 or more employees give one hour of sick time for every 40 hours worked, up to a maximum of 52 hours a year. On top of that, an employee could carryover 52 unused hours from year to year. And it goes beyond the employee’s sickness. It can also be used for a child’s illness, as well as for treatment of an illness, diagnosis and preventative care. Absences related to family violence, sexual assault and stalking would also be covered, including time to attend legal proceedings, to relocate or to obtain services from a victim services organization.

This is another example of the state trying to insert itself into the bargaining process between employers and employees. As we say over and over, the legislature should devote its time to creating an environment where people want to invest in and grow their businesses, creating more and better opportunities for people, rather than trying to micromanage the workplace.

Jim Amann’s announcement yesterday that he will not seek reelection in November was quite a surprise to virtually everyone at the Capitol yesterday. We met with him two days earlier and got no indication whatsoever that he would not be speaker in 2010. With a race for governor coming up, plus a job with the Multiple Sclerosis Society, he felt that something had to give.

Speculation regarding leadership positions in the House started immediately, but potential candidates will likely wait until after the legislative session to do any strong campaigning.

Speaker of the House Jim Amann just announced to the House of Representatives that he will not seek reelection this November. We had expected him to be Speaker for two more years.

Amann formed a gubernatorial exploratory committee several months ago and plans to run for governor in 2010.

More on this later.