Submitted by Andy Duus, Riverside
Permit me to echo others—including Red Jahncke in the Connecticut Examine —in support of State Representative Tina Courpas (149th District), who introduced legislation in the recent opening of the Connecticut General Assembly’s 2026 session to freeze wage and salary increases for state employees for at least two years.
Understanding the full cost of employee wage increases requires recognizing that a simple rise in State wage rates is a permanent ratchet – one that sets in motion two additional and enduring cost effects.
The Current Cost
Since Governor Lamont took office, annual wage and step increases have significantly elevated average compensation of State employees. According to Inside Investigator, the average State employee salary rose from $69,743 in 2018 to $94,675 in 2025, an increase of more than 35% following seven consecutive years of pay increases. Over that same period, average State employee pay exceeded inflation by roughly $3,000.
Additionally, the average value of annual benefits per State employee has been estimated at $40,000, ranking among the highest offered by any state.
The Future Cost
Higher wages do not merely increase current expenditures; they also compound the state’s long-term obligations. Pension benefits are directly linked to salary levels, meaning that today’s wage increases translate into disproportionately higher future pension costs. In other words, a pay increase shortly before an employee’s retirement could trigger a much larger aggregate increase in lifetime pension payments.
As of mid-2025, the actuarial value of Connecticut’s pension liabilities has grown $9 billion in the past five years, reaching a record $105 billion. Over the same period, the State’s unfunded pension liability declined by approximately $9.5 billion, to the recent $33.5 billion. While welcome, the improvement is largely attributable to unanticipated equity market gains rather than lasting policy changes. Markets are cyclical; compensation formulas are not.
The Collateral Damage to Municipalities
Perhaps the most underappreciated consequence of State wage growth is its spillover effect on Connecticut’s municipalities.
Although collective bargaining agreements (“CBA”) negotiated by the State do not legally bind towns and cities, they exert powerful financial, political, and cultural influence. In practice, the state functions as a pacesetter, even though municipalities technically negotiate their own contracts.
Municipal labor negotiations routinely reference the State’s CBAs, and the widespread use of binding interest arbitration amplifies this effect. As the saying goes, towns may choose their own clothing, but Hartford sets the weather. When the State raises wages, municipal leaders face intensified pressure—often through arbitration—to follow suit, regardless of local fiscal capacity.
For property-tax-dependent municipalities, this dynamic is especially challenging.
Why a Freeze Makes Sense—Now
Representative Tina Courpas’s proposal should be viewed not as an ideological statement, but as a necessary emergency measure—a pause that allows policymakers to reassess compensation growth given long-term affordability and statewide consequences.
Approximately 95% of Connecticut’s roughly 50,000 full-time state employees participate in CBAs; these two numbers have remained largely unchanged for years. Meanwhile, advances in automation, artificial intelligence, and workflow optimization are reshaping productivity expectations across the economy. The uncomfortable but unavoidable question is this: why should our State be exempt?
Over the long-term, the only sustainable path to real wage growth – for employees everywhere – is higher productivity. A temporary wage freeze creates the fiscal breathing room necessary to pursue structural reforms: modernization, workforce redesign, and service delivery improvements that benefit both taxpayers and employees.
Absent such a pause, Connecticut risks repeating a familiar pattern: short-term political accommodation, followed by long-term fiscal strain—felt most acutely at the municipal level.
This is a moment that calls not for rhetoric, but for restraint.
Sincerely,
Andy Duus
Riverside