The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to approve a four-year contract granting annual raises of up to 5% to 3,661 state employees, setting aside Republican complaints of unsustainable growth in wages and benefits. The contract puts Connecticut on pace to become the state with the highest wages for state employees, Republicans said. A fiscal analysis says it will cost the state $12 million in the current fiscal year, rising to $45 million in the final year of the contract. “This is simply an unsustainable financial proposition,” said Rep. Tina Courpas, R-Greenwich. The partisan edge in the election-year vote was blunted by 14 Republicans joining 96 Democrats in approving the contract on a 110-31 vote. All 31 votes against were cast by Republicans. The contract calls for annual general wage increases of 2.5%. But the effective raise is 5%, given annual step increases and lump sum payments for workers at the top of the pay scale. “This is going to cover service workers, people who do maintenance, repair, delivery, cleaning, cooking,” said Rep. Josh Elliott, D-Hamden. “We are here to ensure that the people that make our state run get compensated for the service they provide.” The employees are represented by CEUI, the Connecticut Employees Union Independent.  Courpas said the raises to state employees are exceeding the private sector. “If this contract passes, state employee pay will have risen almost 60% in 10 years.” Courpas said. “Connecticut state employees are the second-highest paid in the country, second only to California. If this contract passes, we will become No. 1.” Rep. Tina Courpas, R-Greenwich, addressed the House chamber on Wednesday, March 25, 2026. Credit: CT-N The good times for state employee wages come after lean times. Concessions in the 2010s froze wages and weakened health and retirement benefits, and the executive branch work force shrunk by 10%. Union leaders say the increases are necessary to keep the state competitive as an employer. Courpas said the $169 million available for raises in the current fiscal year is unlikely to be sufficient. The administration of Gov. Ned Lamont recently reached tentative deals with 10 bargaining units, and more are certain to come. “It is my understanding that we have over 30 more collective bargaining agreement contracts which are coming to this chamber, which will be retroactive to July 1, 2025,” she said. Courpas asked how the the state will pay for the contract, especially in the later years. She noted that a portion of the covered employees are paid through the special transportation fund, whose continued solvency is not assured. “How do you resolve that funding?” she asked. “It seems that we may have to find potentially new revenue to fund our special transportation fund, but when that time comes, we will be in a new biennium,” Elliott said. “And the question will be to the chamber and to the House and Senate then, so it’s not a question we have to answer today.” House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said rejecting the contract was not feasible.   House Speaker Matt Ritter talking to reporters before the House session on March 25, 2026. Credit: mark pazniokas The state employee unions could turn to binding arbitration, and the current fiscal conditions would be advantageous to labor in any arbitration. House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, acknowledged that bending the curve on rising labor costs would not be easy. “I think there’s got to be a broader conversation of doing a better job,” Candelora said. “Whittling away at overtime, for instance. This actually goes in reverse. It’s going to give employees that have comp time, they’re now going to get overtime. So I’m not saying that we’re able to change everything overnight, but these contracts are going in the wrong direction.” Ritter cast the Republican concerns as election-year politics. “A no vote today, you might feel like you’re sending a signal to the outside world, but in the inside, we all know the reality,” Ritter said before the vote. “This is the contract, this is the rate that would be approved, whether we vote for it or not. But, yeah, people got to do what they got do. It’s an election year. I get it.” ...read more read less