New Haven
                                         March 15, 1993
tcc     LABOR AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES       7:00 p.m.
PRESIDING CHAIRMAN:          Representative Lawlor
                             Senator Colapietro
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
SENATORS:
REPRESENTATIVES:             Dargan, Buonocore
REPRESENTATIVE LAWLOR:  (beginning of hearing not
    recorded) -- understands what is really at stake in
tcc      LABOR AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES      March 15, 1993
    these hearings.  First of all, let me introduce the
    members of the Labor and Public Employees
    Committee, who have come down here tonight.  First
    of all, my name is Mike Lawlor.  I'm the House
    Chairman of the Labor and Public Employees
    Committee.  I represent the Town of East Haven and
    the Short Beach part of Branford.
    To my immediate right in the Senate Chairman of the
    committee, Senator Tom Colapietro, who is from
    Bristol -- and where else?
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Plymouth, Southington, Plainville and
    Bristol.
REP. LAWLOR:  Plymouth, Southington, Plainville and
    Bristol.  The Senators get a lot of room to
    represent.  To my immediate left is Representative
    Steve Dargan from West Haven and to my far left is
    Representative Dominic Buonocore from Branford.
    There are other members of the committee.  They
    represent other towns around the state and it was
    difficult for them to come all the way down here to
    New Haven, but since we're all from this area with
    the exception of my Senate Chair here, we wanted to
    come here tonight to listen to people's points of
    view.
    Second, let me tell you that normally public
    hearings are conducted at the State Capitol itself.
    Last Thursday we conducted a public hearing
    concerning the Workers' Compensation proposals that
    were the main subject for tonight.  Over 160 people
    signed up to testify, roughly evenly divided
    between the pro-claimant point of view and the
    pro-business point of view and we've asked people
    to sign up on our sign-up sheets tonight on the
    same basis.
    So if you would like to testify tonight, but have
    not yet already signed up, please come forward and
    you can sign up on the sheets and we've asked you
    to choose either pro-claimant or pro-business so
    that we can alternate between the two sides.
    Third, let me very briefly explain the nature of
    the bills that deal with Workers' Comp.  We have
    raised a whole assortment of proposals, over 40 or
    50 possible changes in the system.
    What we have tried to do is identify every
    suggested change regardless of whether it affects
    doctors or lawyers or insurance companies or
    businesses or organized labor or whatever.  We have
    tried to solicit every possible suggestion and put
    those out for public hearing so that people could
    tell us what they think and how the system affects
    them.
    So we have not enlisted any particular set of
    changes.  We want to hear what you have to say
    about how the system is working at the moment and
    we'll try and incorporate as much of your
    suggestions as possible in the overall system and
    since it is a rare occurrence for us to leave the
    Capitol for public hearings, our committee also
    deals with issues such as unemployment
    compensation, worker retraining, state and
    municipal employee issues and if you feel you'd
    like to comment on any of those, please feel free
    to do so.  However, I have to say that because of
    the large number of people who have signed up
    tonight, we have asked you to limit your initial
    testimony to three minutes per person.
    If there are questions which follow up after that
    period of time, any member of the committee may ask
    you questions and so if there are questions, you
    are more than welcome to respond to those questions
    and I think I volunteer on behalf of all of us, if
    there's other things you would like to submit to us
    in writing or whatever, please make those available
    to the clerks and those all become a permanent part
    of the record for any of the bills we're
    considering.
    So having said that, those are essentially the
    ground rules.  You'll probably hear a bell go off
    as you're testifying.  That means your three
    minutes are up.  Once you hear that bell, we'll ask
    you to quickly summarize, and again, as I said, if
    we have questions, perhaps we can go back and
    forth.  So, and before we go forward, I would just
    like to thank the labor temple, I don't know who
    the organization is specifically, for making the
    room available tonight and we certainly do
    appreciate the opportunity to come down here.  As I
    said, it is unusual for us to leave the comfort of
    the State Capitol to hear what real people have to
    say, so I welcome this opportunity and we're
    looking forward to hearing what you have to say.
    Senator, did you want to say anything or --?
    Okay, so having said that, the first person to
    testify is Anthony Madden, who will be followed by
    Howard Goldfarb, then Warren Gould, then Tadd
    McGwire, I believe it is, and then Linda Thompson.
ANTHONY MADDEN:  My name is Anthony Madden.  I'm a
    member of JUSTICE, injured Connecticut people for
    workers' rights and also the Silver Wave.
    I've been in the injured area here with Workers'
    Compensation since 1985.  I was up through Program
    Review.  First, you are talking about cutting
    people's benefits and stuff.  I think it's a
    serious thing that we have to sit down and make the
    people are receiving their benefits.  Amongst the
    groups with ourselves we have a lot of people that
    have not received ten cents.  A lot of people are
    being turned away without having proper medical
    care and everything else because the system is not
    set up to protect the injured worker like it's
    supposed to.
    Commissioners are not enforcing the law like they
    should be.  They're sworn into a position.
    They're hired, they're paid a humongous amount of
    money and I think there's a big problem with
    watching them to make sure they enforce what
    they're supposed to.
    My case went from the beginning to informal
    hearings without an attorney, until I had to hire
    an attorney because I wasn't being treated right.
    The insurances were in the back room, which I was
    yelled at for calling it the back room, with the
    commissioners, with the stenographers when we went
    to formal hearings.  I'm being totally run around
    here.
    I have a letter here, at the time it was Nardine
    Riddle was up there.  I'm waiting for a letter from
    Mr. Blumenthal here, that they cannot oversee
    Workers' Compensation problems.  I have another one
    from the chief state's attorney's office, for
    misconduct.  I have a lot of things that are given
    to them in a letter and for some reason, all that
    they looked that there was no myelogram, the doctor
    made an erroneous mistake.
    I can't get anybody to look into this.  Senator
    Upson I spoke to at the Silas Bronson Library said
    he would look into it and then investigate it.  I
    don't know who else to turn to.  I mean we came up
    to the committee to try to explain to you fellows,
    it's hard for you too I know, because it's not the
    only thing on your agendas, but we're stuck with a
    system here that's not working.  It's not working
    properly.
    Cutting a benefit, I don't know what's been cut
    when a person is not receiving the benefit, but we
    really need help and I hope this will do it because
    Program Review, all that came out of that was
    cutting the person's benefit then and I mean I have
    a commissioner that hates my guts.  I swear he goes
    home and lights candles and hopes that I die.  It
    really seems that way to me anyhow.
    And when you sit there and these commissioners are
    in the back, you can't see them, the attorneys are
    back there, the insurance companies are back there,
    you feel like two cents because you don't know
    what's going on, but I mean I really -- I just
    talked to Mr. Blumenthal's Office with Mike Mullane
    and he's going to send a letter and I also would
    like a letter from the committee back to the chief
    state's attorney's office to do a proper
    investigation because this sure wasn't a proper
    investigation.  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Well, I can tell you, Anthony, among the
    many proposals that we're considering this year are
    several which would impose what would be for the
    first time penalties on insurance companies or
    employers who don't pay on time after they've been
    ordered to make payments by a commissioner.  I know
    that's not exactly your case, but many people have
    told us that's a problem and even after they go
    through the procedures such as they are and they're
    ordered to make payments, that doesn't happen and I
    think, you know, we've heard a number of complaints
    both in this committee, and as you know, I'm a
    member of the Judiciary Committee, that you've been
    before us many times about who is being appointed
    as Workers' Comp commissioners.
    I think we've seen in recent years, or at least in
    the last year, there's been a definite shift in
    emphasis on making sure there are competent people
    being appointed as Workers' Comp commissioners that
    understand the system and understand how it's
    supposed to work, and finally, I can say that, you
    know, I'm sure it was the intent when this system
    was first designed over 70 years ago that you
    wouldn't need lawyers to go into the system.  You
    wouldn't have to hire them and the insurance
    companies wouldn't show up with their own lawyers
    and it's supposed to be an informal system and if I
    can summarize our intent, it is to help bring down
    the cost by making the procedures much more common
    sense so that people who are injured on the job get
    their benefits quickly and so that people who -- to
    the extent people are involved in fraud or
    something like that, that's identified quickly and
    they're out of the system.  So we're hearing what
    you're saying.
ANTHONY MADDEN:  One point I wanted to make with the
    payment of late charges and penalties, that's left
    up to the commissioner's discretion and when
    they're six months without paying you and the
    commissioner turns around and says, well, gee,
    there's a lot of red tape involved, there's a big
    problem.
REP. LAWLOR:  Well, under our proposal if you don't
    make the payments within 20 days -- I think it's 20
    days, 15 or 20 days of the date that it's ordered,
    there's an automatic 20 percent penalty that kicks
    in and many states do it that way.  The federal
    system does it that way and there's no reason
    Connecticut shouldn't join that.
ANTHONY MADDEN:  I hope so.  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Next is Howard Goldfarb and then Warren
    Gould.
HOWARD GOLDFARB:  Good evening.  My name is Howard
    Goldfarb and I'm the President of (inaudible)
    Industries in Hamden.  We're a five generation
    Connecticut manufacturer of architectural aluminum
    products.  In 1989 our two plants employed 155
    Connecticut residents.  At the present time we have
    61 total employees.
    One of the most important reasons is the
    overwhelming cost of doing business in the State of
    Connecticut.  A great deal of this cost is due to
    state mandates which many of our competitors in
    other parts of the country do not face.  On March 3
    our Workmen's Comp policy was due for renewal.
    We requested bids of (inaudible) and of the 12
    insurance companies we solicited a quote only two
    ultimately quoted us.
    Our existing carrier, which was The Hartford,
    quoted $143,000.  This is 61 employees, which was
    almost 50 percent above the rate we were paying for
    the existing policy on March 2nd.  Because of this,
    the only other carrier who did quote us was the
    CBIA pool and we were forced to go into the CBIA
    policy which did not offer the same level of
    service that we had with The Hartford.  We were
    under what they call peer review, which offered
    excellent follow-up for our employees.  When
    somebody goes to the hospital, they are right there
    and they were taking care of them, getting them
    back to work.
    We had at least two cases where employees were
    injured.  Peer review got them back to work at a
    very reasonable period of time and thus kept our
    costs down, but because of the increased cost, we
    were forced to drop the Hartford's policy.  Due to
    current conditions in Connecticut, it appears to us
    that virtually no insurers are willing to assume
    any risks in this state due to the high medical
    costs and other factors such as excessive scarring
    awards.  We've had people that cut their finger and
    had two stitches and got $150 and $175 as a reward.
    I can understand awards for people who are badly
    disfigured or badly injured, but I don't see any
    reason why somebody should be paid for having a cut
    on their finger.  Okay.
    Something must be done or no one will be able to
    afford Workmen's Comp in this state.  If reforms
    are not taken, there will be very little of an
    industrial base left in business.  Therefore, I
    urge you to reform Connecticut's Workmen's laws so
    that insurance companies will once again be able to
    offer policies which make our Connecticut companies
    competitive with other states.
    I notice that some of the -- I guess pro-claimant
    people, have put up a sign behind you and in front
    here indicating that this position may be hazardous
    to your health.  (inaudible, static).  That's
    absolutely correct.  Unless reforms are enacted,
    more companies will close, relocate and more people
    will lose their jobs.  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Any questions from members of the
    committee?  Senator Colapietro.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  You stated there was a couple of
    things that I've been following through.  One of
    them was the cost of the insurance companies that
    are charging you.  I mean you had to dropped The
    Hartford and go to CBIA.  Would you be receptive to
    a state fund where it would be competitive against
    the CBIA and it would cost your premiums less and
    you'd have more control over it?
HOWARD GOLDFARB:  I would be receptive to anything that
    brings out costs in line with our competitors in
    Tennessee and in Georgia and in Texas and all the
    places that don't pay what we have to pay.  It's
    very difficult to make a profit in Connecticut in
    this economy and we're working razor thin on
    everything and to go up by -- from $95,000 to
    $143,000 in one jump is just totally unacceptable
    and not only that, to not give anybody who even
    wants to offer you a bid is, I found to be totally
    apprehensible.
REP. LAWLOR:  Any further questions from members of the
    committee?  Thank you very much, Mr. Goldfarb.
    Next is Warren Gould, to be followed by Tad
    McGwire.
WARREN GOULD:  Good evening.  I'm Warren Gould.  I'm
    President of the (inaudible) Council and Business
    Manager for the Painters Decorators Union.
    Chairman Lawlor, Chairman Colapietro and members of
    the Labor Committee, I want to thank you for coming
    here to New Haven to hear the points of the worker
    and unemployed people from the Greater New Haven
    Area.
    (inaudible, static) moving into distortion of
    the issues, but (inaudible) and I'm virtually
    getting ripped off here in the State of
    Connecticut, but through the United States since
    1980.  (inaudible) Jobs for All (inaudible).
    Businesses and workers have been robbed.  The rich
    rob the workers by reversing the tax structure.
    Their taxes were cut in half.  Ours have gone up.
    We're all facing a dramatic jobs problem here in
    the Northeast.  We are expecting higher and higher
    unemployment.  (inaudible) cut the workers.  Cut
    Workers' Comp.  (inaudible) General Assistance.
    Trickle down has not benefitted us.  Cutting
    workers programs is not going to benefit anyone in
    the State of Connecticut.  As a matter of fact, it
    would do nothing but hurt our economy as a whole.
    We oppose HB7152.  (inaudible) -- a program that
    was put out by the AFL-CIO, and particularly the
    one the Chairman mentioned earlier, mentioned by
    Senator Colapietro, who spoke to a Workers'
    Compensation Fund here in the State of Connecticut.
    And if such a fund can save jobs (inaudible).  We
    needs jobs to stay and we do need workers to
    (inaudible).
    Also, we stand in support of legislation, HB7063,
    which is AN ACT TO INCREASE PENALTIES FOR
    PREVAILING WAGE, and the reason (inaudible).  This
    is a law that deals with people within construction
    the opportunity to make what's called a living wage
    and benefits (inaudible) and to cut that is to cut
    workers' opportunity for living wage and in essence
    (inaudible).
    Municipalities have to take a look at the rights of
    workers.  The time has come in the state
    legislature, the feds and the municipalities have
    to take a look at the rights of workers.
    (inaudible) what do we do for the working people?
    How do we put more money into their pockets so they
    can spend money, create more jobs and have a
    (inaudible) economy.
    To destroy working people is destroying an economy
    and we urge you to turn (inaudible) and come up
    with an (inaudible) action out of the Labor
    Committee.
    APPLAUSE
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you very much.  Any questions?
    Before I ask any questions, I neglected to mention
    another rule that's part of the legislative
    process.  Those of you who have testified are aware
    of it and the hearings normally -- our rules at the
    State Capitol are that they cannot be interrupted
    by applause or public demonstrations.  The purpose
    of these hearings is not so much to necessarily
    have a pep rally because it tends to intimidate
    some people and we're interested in hearing what's
    on your minds, and you know, rallies have a very
    important place in the political process, but this
    is not the specific location for it, so I'd ask
    that we refrain from applause or any type of
    heckling or anything like that tonight, as is the
    case for all public hearings and normally it only
    takes on admonition and that solves the problem,
    but nonetheless, I think Representative Buonocore
    had a question.
REP. BUONOCORE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Warren, you
    mentioned putting money into programs and to some
    degree I support you.  My big question is where is
    this money coming from?
WARREN GOULD:  I wasn't suggesting specifically into
    programs.  I'm suggesting coming up with a real
    plan of action that's going to create jobs here in
    the State of Connecticut.  As an example, in the
    last decade, the major tax giveback to the rich or
    given to the rich by doing their jobs into another
    country.
    My suggestion is can the State of Connecticut come
    up with a plan to bring jobs back here into the
    State of Connecticut.  Certainly you can't resolve
    that on the federal level.  You're not in Congress.
    You're in the state, but to simply suggest that we
    can come up with a plan to create jobs is false,
    but I think we need to be very, very creative in
    doing this, obviously.  One thought is to take a
    look at the construction industry itself in the
    State of Connecticut.
    Many of the unions themselves are saying workers
    are at 30, 40, 50 percent unemployment.  People
    working 26, 30 weeks out of the year, it's very
    dramatic.  Take a look at what can we do to do
    something within that particular industry to build
    this economy.  Yet at the same time here in the
    State of Connecticut when there are some
    construction jobs, if go just the opposite way and
    do a (inaudible) or bring in construction workers
    from out of state, in some cases from out of the
    country awarding (inaudible) of a building that's
    being built, that doesn't do any good for the State
    of Connecticut.  We've got to put a stop to that,
    but a point of action it's going to not only create
    jobs in the State of Connecticut.
    If you want to sit down and discuss that question,
    that plan of action, in other words suggest maybe a
    special working group to do that, I would certainly
    would love to play a role in that process, but what
    I'm suggesting here tonight is that some of the
    negative legislation I see before me is not going
    to accomplish the goal of turning the state around.
    It's going to do nothing but dramatically
    negatively affect the state.
REP. BUONOCORE:  Well, I had attended (inaudible)
    Council and the arguments back then were -- about a
    month and a half ago -- were simply the jobs
    leaving the state.  You're addressing those jobs
    leaving the state.  Most of the people in
    attendance agree that those jobs were the jobs
    paying five dollars and less and they wouldn't seek
    those jobs.
    So in that light, I think the jobs that we're
    seeking leaving the state are the low paying jobs.
    We had put ourselves -- (laughter).
REP. LAWLOR:  Ladies and gentlemen.
REP. BUONOCORE:  Most of the jobs that we discussed
    (inaudible) were low paying jobs that were leaving
    the state and the funny thing is that, you know,
    people don't seem to want those jobs and work for
    five dollars an hour.  Therefore, why are we
    struggling to maintain those jobs.
    I know we've lost a great deal of money from the
    state, putting out state funds to support
    industries, that looking at the list, only 50
    percent of the list I've seen have gone down the
    drain anyway.
WARREN GOULD:  Yes.
REP. BUONOCORE:  So I think we've got to be more
    cautious on how we expend state monies.  It's
    coming back to the taxpayers anyway and our goal is
    to make sure that we get the most for those
    dollars.
WARREN GOULD:  Certainly we were not clear enough on
    that particular issue, but I can tell you that one
    gentleman sitting in the audience, Nick Aiello, has
    been representing workers in (inaudible) textile
    for 35 years and that industry has been devastated
    here in the State of Connecticut.
    Right down on Worcester Square at one time there
    were 5,000 workers who made what was called the
    living wage.  Right now you can probably count 50
    at the most.
    Are we saying that the jobs that have left the
    State of Connecticut are just $4.25 an hour jobs?
    No, we're not saying that. You're saying that
    living wage jobs leaving. That's being replaced
    with jobs that are $4.25 an hour and jobs where you
    can't afford to make a living.
    The Labor Committee I think has a challenge before
    it.  The challenge before it is to come up with a
    plan of action to turn the economy around.
    (inaudible, static).  And we want you to do that
    and we want to be involved in that process of that
    challenge.
REP. LAWLOR:  Further questions?  Representative
    Dargan.
REP. DARGAN:  My concern is this.  Two years ago when I
    served on Labor we had, which I feel, a
    comprehensive reform to Workmen's Comp and I
    listened to the business community and listened to
    the concerns and thought that this would be the
    so-called cure-all and two years later I'm
    listening to business again with (inaudible)
    advertising campaign.  This is just my political
    opinion on business.
    I've learned that you stated earlier, which I think
    would be a great idea where labor within the State
    of Connecticut could sit down with the business
    industry to come up with some comprehensive plan.
    Would you be interested in something like that if
    we formed some form of group between labor and
    business because what I see here the two sides not
    coming together, but going farther apart and since
    I've been a friend of labor, I (inaudible) and get
    to 91 and listen to reform with Workmen's Comp and
    maybe if the business industry would not spend
    $150,000 in advertising and would put it in some
    form of safety committees within their groups, it
    might benefit not only the workers, but the economy
    within our state.
WARREN GOULD:  Now you've just mentioned two areas in
    essence where labor and management can clearly come
    together and it's very clear certainly within the
    construction trades, which I work in very close on
    the issue of Workers' Comp because the costs have a
    dramatic negative effect on workers in general
    survey.  (inaudible) reducing it and this is why
    the AFL-CIO came out to provide an alternative
    which is in essence a statewide program and has
    gone out as much as possible, the insurance
    companies who are dramatically charging people for
    an awful amount of money, and you know, we had
    reform last year and I don't know how many
    companies have had a reduction in their Workers'
    Comp claim.  (inaudible).  It happened last year.
    I know I looked at my Workers' Comp bill that I get
    in our office in our small, little union office.
    We had an increase of 11 percent and we never had a
    Workers' claim.  So I have to question whether or
    not reform is really going to reduce costs and it
    appears to me that it's not going to reduce cost.
    So what's the argument.
    If the (inaudible) really reduce costs, then you've
    got to take the person who is making the big money,
    and that's the insurance company, out of the
    picture.  Have a statewide system whereby the
    workers will have some input on the health and
    safety committees (inaudible) and other companies
    here in New Haven from leaving.  Yes, we want to do
    that.
REP. DARGAN:  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Senator Colapietro.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Yes, I was kind of hoping that one of
    the AFL-CIO people were going to testify here, but
    you're not and you're on right now.  I want to ask
    you, in 1991 when the agreement was made with
    labor, the insurance companies, the trial lawyers,
    all parties involved, and the legislature, the cry
    was then for jobs, jobs, jobs, as Lowell Weicker
    would say, and also the cry was then that a deal is
    a deal.
    If we settled for this, and I understand that that
    was part of it, so I can say it, that labor
    understood that part of the deal was that we would
    have these sacrifices if everything would hold the
    line.  Shortly after, the insurance companies with
    a 9.2 or 9.3 percent, not even before the ink was
    dry on the bill.  The beginning of this year,
    before the legislature was started, we came back
    with another 13 percent increase.  My question to
    you, as a labor representative or a negotiator, had
    you have known those increases would have come
    forth or the AFL-CIO, along with labor, were coming
    out with those two major increases, would you have
    said, yes, this is a deal?
WARREN GOULD:  I didn't have the opportunity to be in
    any of those meetings that you --.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  I wouldn't have.  I'm asking you --.
WARREN GOULD:  If I was in that particular position,
    no, I would not have said yes.  I would have said,
    no, obviously.  I think that this is a game and I
    think that if we don't stop this game that's being
    played against working people, I think the state
    will be into a downhill spiral, a continuing
    downhill spiral, and again, I revert back to saying
    that the best way to resolve the economy here in
    the State of Connecticut is give the workers, jobs,
    jobs, jobs with a living wage and health care and
    that's how it's going to turn around.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  And I just wanted to point out, Warren, I
    was surprised to find out myself that, you know,
    one of the proposals we do have in our package of
    bills is to establish a state fund, the state
    insurance fund which would compete with the
    insurance companies.
    I was surprised to find out that 23 states have
    such a competitive fund and five states actually
    have an exclusive fund.  In those five states it's
    against the law for any insurance companies to get
    involved in Workers' Comp.  It's the state that
    processes it and some of them have had tremendous
    success.  So that is definitely one of the things
    we're working on.  Representative Buonocore had a
    question.
REP. BUONOCORE:  Warren, have any of your people had
    problems with companies that are self-insured?  Do
    they have the same types of problems?  The
    companies that go through insurance companies?
WARREN GOULD:  Well, you have some similar problems in
    the sense that some of the self-insured are
    utilizing the insurance companies to manage their
    fund to some degree.
REP. BUONOCORE:  Well, UI and SNET came up Thursday and
    said, no, they're not having the problems everybody
    else seems to be addressing.
WARREN GOULD:  If you create a system where you can get
    the insurance companies out of it, get them out of
    the picture, reduce the costs totally for the
    insurance companies, similar to what you SNET and
    UI are doing certainly?
REP. BUONOCORE:  Yes, but their cost of increase is the
    point I'm trying to get at.  We're in the same
    category as the insurance companies.  Their rates
    still went up 40 and 50 percent, just as the
    insurance companies.  They want to function as
    self-insured, without insurance companies and
    having the same kinds of expenses doing Workmen's
    Compensation and there are no differences.  So
    blame it on the insurance company.  If they were
    wrong, I'll jump on the bandwagon with you.
    Certainly (inaudible) self-insured and regular
    insured, there doesn't seem to be appear to be a
    difference from what we've heard Thursday, the
    increase is the same.  So whether we go from
    self-insured, insurance companies or the state
    financing is the costs are still the same costs and
    that's what's being reflected back here and our
    intention is to reduce the process.
WARREN GOULD:  I'd have to see it to believe it because
    if you're saying to me that insurance companies are
    out there making a tremendous amount of profit,
    it's not going to make a difference in the fund and
    if that's what's happening in other states where
    you're saving a tremendous amount of money by
    (inaudible) insurance company, but it's not having
    with the Southern New England Telephone Company,
    I'll have to see it to believe it.
REP. BUONOCORE:  One other thing, we'll have to keep
    watching the other states.  Are you familiar with
    the injury percentage in other states in comparison
    with Connecticut?
WARREN GOULD:  No.
REP. BUONOCORE:  How do we rate?
WARREN GOULD:  No.
REP. BUONOCORE:  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you very much.  Further questions?
    If not, thank you, Warren.  Next is Tad McGwire to
    be followed by Linda Thompson and then Allison
    Sylvia.
TAD MCGWIRE:  Good evening.  My name is Tad McGwire.
    I'm President of the Industrial Heater Company and
    we're located in Stratford.
REP. LAWLOR:  Tad, if you could just pull over that
    microphone a little bit closer to your mouth,
    that's one that's live there.
TAD MCGWIRE:  We're a manufacturer of electric heating
    elements and we employ roughly 75 people.  I'm here
    tonight to voice my support for the reforms
    proposed by the CBIA of Workmen's Comp.
    Workmen's Comp has obviously become a significant
    cost to us and we have two primary concerns, one
    with the level of our premiums, and two, with our
    ability to control any of those costs.  I have two
    examples.
    We recently moved into Connecticut, bucking a
    trend, from New York.  We moved in, in 1991 in New
    York using the State Insurance Fund.  They have a
    state fund in New York.  Our premiums for our
    factory employees were $3.71 per $100.  For those
    same employees doing the same work here in
    Connecticut, it's now $6.87 per $100, an 85 percent
    increase for the same jobs.
    Now maybe the state fund is the way to go for
    Connecticut.  That's not what I'm trying to argue
    here.  I'm just trying to find a way, support a way
    that we can get our costs down.  All right, in
    total, those increases added roughly $25,000
    annually to our Workmen's Comp cost.
    In terms of the control, in New York we had a great
    experience rating.  We think we run a fairly safe
    shop and each year the way the state fund works is
    if you had a good experience rating and you don't
    have any injuries you get a dividend and we have to
    $8,000 to $10,000 dividends annually.
    In Connecticut we aren't getting anything.  We have
    a terrible experience rating here in Connecticut
    and I think one of the reasons we have that is the
    lack of control of the system.
    I guess my big bone to pick is with the doctors and
    my ability to direct or at least have some say in
    the care and the rehab of an injured employee.  As
    an example, we had an employee who three weeks
    after starting with us developed carpal tunnel
    syndrome, one of their risks.
    We didn't find out about the problem until we
    received our first doctor's bill and by that point
    we lost control of the whole case and a doctor, for
    all intents and purposes, has a blank check to pass
    costs along to our insurance company and then
    eventually us.
    Again, and from that point on, we have no say on
    either the rehab or where the surgery takes place,
    there's no competitive situation where I can send
    the injured employee to a doctor of my own choice
    to see if I can get the surgery done for less.
    It's totally out of control.
    We moved to Connecticut in part because we felt the
    system had to change here.  I guess I'm kind of
    contrary by nature, that things are so bad here
    that I figure they had to change.  In moving here
    though, to cover our own backs, we lease --
    currently lease our manufacturing space.  We have
    an option to buy our building.
    One of the factors, one of the decision factors is
    going to be Workmen's Comp costs when it comes time
    to renew our lease or buy our building.  Without
    significant change, we're going to walk from the
    State of Connecticut.  I love the State of
    Connecticut.  I went to high school here.  I love
    to raise my children here.  The quality of life
    here is terrific.  But my company has got to be in
    the position to make a dollar and Workmen's Comp
    significantly affects my ability to make a dollar
    and it affects my ability to compete and to grow
    and in the long run that costs the state jobs and
    it may eventually force us to relocate, and to
    summarize, again, we support the reforms before us
    by the CBIA.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you, Tad.  Just before we can go
    on, just a brief announcement.  I've been told that
    -- I know there's not an awful lot of parking
    outside, but apparently a few people have parked
    immediately behind cars that now cannot get out, so
    if you recall when you pulled in if you parked
    behind a car, in essence blocking it in, I don't
    have license plate numbers right now, but if you
    think you might be blocking a car, please go out
    and take a look because a couple people have to
    leave and we'd appreciate it.
    Secondly, Tad, I'd just like to point out that you
    mentioned two things which are very important and
    perhaps as we go through this evening we'll learn
    more and more about the proposals, but the state
    fund, you mentioned, that is something we're
    looking at, not as a complete substitute for
    private insurance in Connecticut, but as an
    alternative because it's considered -- it's
    considered that we could bring the rates down by
    making that alternative available.
    Secondly, we do have some proposals which would
    provide dividends or incentives, rebates, if you
    will, to employers who have exemplary safety
    records, who have worked in safety committees in
    the workplace, etc. because obviously the fewer
    people who get hurt, the lower costs are, and
    finally, regarding doctors, we do have a wide
    variety of proposals regarding doctors, especially
    a strict limitations on the fees doctors are
    allowed to charge in Workers' Comp cases similar to
    what's done in the Medicare system and so proposals
    regarding preferred provider.
    So I think all of what you have suggested in
    addition to what CBIA has, CBIA is sort of focused
    simply on the benefits.  We've gone much wider than
    that, looking at other possible solutions to bring
    the costs down.  I think Senator Colapietro has a
    question, but I do have a license plate number,
    727DAE, a blue Toyota Tercel, apparently you're
    blocking somebody.  Senator Colapietro.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Thank you.  You said a couple of good
    things and then you kind of contradicted it by
    supporting the CBIA's proposal.  The CBIA's
    proposal does deal mainly with benefit cuts and
    workers.  What we have -- go ahead.
TAD MCGWIRE:  I think that you have to attack it from
    both sides though.  I mean the costs in the system,
    inherent in the system are the benefits paid out
    and the doctors' fees, right, the benefits after
    the injury and the fees of getting the injury
    repaired and the rehab, so that there's two sides
    you've got to come at it.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  And in insurance premium are you
    don't count those?
TAD MCGWIRE:  Well, if you reduce the costs, I'm making
    the assumption the insurance premiums are going to
    come down.  Maybe I'm being a bit naive.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Put that up there, "assume".  It
    doesn't work that way.  Now last year, 1991, that
    was what everyone had in mind.  The benefits were
    cut in fact.  The insurance premiums did increase
    in fact and not a job was created and not a layoff
    was prevented that I know of and yet this year
    they're asking for the same exact thing, cut
    workers' benefits and don't talk about the real
    cost.  The state fund is a real honest to goodness
    way of cutting costs to you.  It would be the
    premiums.  And you talk about a self-insured or a
    competitive fund.
    No matter how you look at it, when you take your
    money and put it into a fund and it's administered
    by someone else other than yourself, then it
    becomes the same thing as an insurance company
    handling their money.  It may be a broker or
    somebody else.  So the myth is it doesn't cost you,
    but it does because the cost of administration is
    added to that.
    If you would stick to your original guns like some
    of the business have come forward and saying let's
    look at the real costs and go for the problems that
    we have in the insurance premiums, I think there
    would be a lot more receptiveness on our part
    because you support the real costs, but you only
    want to the talk about the benefits of the CBIA
    thing, I mean the cuts in the CBIA benefits.
TAD MCGWIRE:  Well, that's why I came tonight.  I'm not
    just in support of the CBIA benefits.  You're
    right, you have to attack the costs as well.  I'm
    very familiar with state funds and we have a lot of
    experience with the New York State Fund and that
    worked very well for us and kept our costs down.
    Like I said, the interest was 85 percent coming up
    here.
    And again, what I want to stress to you guys is we
    have to be competitive as a state and you can't --
    we can't just look at the State of Connecticut.  We
    have to take a global perspective or at least an
    initial perspective as to what we're doing both in
    costs and in benefits so we can hopefully be
    competitive.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Thank you.  I think that's what we're
    trying to do.
REP. LAWLOR:  There's one other car.  I don't know
    what the description is, but the license plate is
    ST8463.  Apparently you're also blocking someone
    in.  Next is Linda Thompson to be followed by
    Allison Sylvia and I just point out that there's
    plenty of seats in the front for those of you who
    are standing in the back if you'd like to sit down,
    and secondly, if anyone wishes to testify, you need
    to sign the list first.  We're calling the people
    in the order in which they've signed up, so please
    come forward and do so.  Linda.
LINDA THOMPSON:  Good evening.  (inaudible, static).
    I'm President of the (inaudible) Health
    Organization.  We work with chemically injured
    workers and we have the (inaudible) multiple
    chemical sensitivity.  Not so much is known about
    this disease yet, but we're in the process of
    trying to educate people in the state as to the
    seriousness of this illness (inaudible).
    I'd like to begin by requesting that you consider
    our needs in the future for any legal hearings
    (inaudible) aftershave and other hair care products
    (inaudible) because the (inaudible) market, they
    include a lot of toxic chemicals, very severe
    reactions in our members and I'm having a reaction
    right now and what I'm trying to (inaudible) all
    these hearings become perfume free and advertised
    as such so that our members can attend because it's
    very difficult for us to function in this kind of
    environment.
    (inaudible) 300 injured workers in trying to gain
    benefits, in trying to understand their illness and
    what to do about it.  (inaudible) experiencing is
    (inaudible) take years to bring resolution to some
    of these cases in which workers and their families
    can lose absolutely everything, including their
    homes.
    We're having problems with the Workers'
    Compensation Commission, recognizing the illness of
    multiple chemical sensitivity.  We would like to
    recommend that you consider just (inaudible)
    training session for the hearing officers would
    solve the problem overnight.
    (inaudible) occupational clinic (inaudible).  The
    people we represent are experiencing long delays in
    getting medical bills paid.  Now I know that
    doctors are not supposed to stop seeing them
    (inaudible) can't get the medical care they need
    because of (inaudible).
    -- and that's what it is.  I have figures that
    ECO can give to you on the environmental quality
    of (inaudible) our society.  Now after we've
    created this dangerous situation in the workplace,
    they don't want to assume any kind of
    responsibility for the injured workers that they
    have injured.  We are proposing that instead of
    (inaudible) safety committees, other workers
    themselves.  This is not going to cost the state a
    dime.  ECO has people that can go on the job.
    We're trained to explain to the supervisors what we
    need to clean up the workplace.
REP. LAWLOR:  Linda, if you could summarize at this
    point.
LINDA THOMPSON:  Okay, so I'm saying that it's not fair
    to have the employees come in here and threaten us
    with job blackmail.  That should be illegal.
    (inaudible), but think of a way to make that --
    that is unfair and (inaudible).  Why are there so
    many people here tonight?  It doesn't need to be
    this way.  We don't need to be in this position.
    ECO knows it and there are situations that we need
    to simply prevent this illness.  If I had been
    educated 40 years ago before I became disabled, I
    never would have become disabled and we can get the
    word out if you (inaudible) to prevent all this
    illness.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you.  Any questions from members of
    the committee?  Linda, I can assure you, one of the
    proposals, again, is mandatory health and safety
    committees in the workplace and that's certainly
    part of our proposals and --.
LINDA THOMPSON:  All right, I'd just like to respond to
    one thing on the state one.  I think you have to
    take the profit out of the system.  If we set up
    another another unresponsive bureaucracy and you
    start putting the workers just through another
    maze, it's not going to help.  What we need is
    workers' control of that bureaucracy.  You know, we
    need to sit on the Board of Directors.  We need to
    have people informing the hearing officer of the
    workers' needs.  You know, we don't just want
    another apparatus that's out of our hands.  Okay?
    Thank you very much.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you very much.  Next is Allison
    Sylvia
ALLISON SYLVIA:  Good evening.  My name is Allison
    Sylvia.  I'm a mother of four children and the wife
    of a disabled construction worker who has been
    disabled for three and a half years.  I am also a
    worker as a nurse which is considered a high risk
    profession.
    Because of health care reform and health conscious
    costs, we are all short staffed at the hospital
    where I work.  We do our best, but we have our
    constraints and because we are short staffed we
    have an increase in the amount of occurrences of
    Workers' Compensation claims.
    It's ironic, but we are so close to the anniversary
    of the Blizzard of '88, during which time over 400
    people died and the reason for the majority of
    people dying is because they had to go to work
    because (inaudible) wasn't enough to be dismissed
    and it's a shame that the way the business's
    proposal now is to revert over 100 years ago and
    take the workers' rights back away from them.
    I have a number of concerns, and I will try to be
    as brief as I can.  My main concern tonight is to
    bring about the fact that the Americans With
    Disabilities Act has gone into effect on the
    federal level.  I have lobbied for the American
    Diabetes Association, the Connecticut Affiliate,
    and I've worked a long time to make sure that
    people with health problems have had a fair shake.
    I don't see why the workers who are injured on the
    job through no fault of their own should serve any
    less importance than the people who have chronic
    illnesses and I think that any reduction in
    benefits across the board or any type of steering
    for medical care will come under serious review
    with that act now being in place.
    To bring to your attention, which I'm sure you've
    heard before here today, but it can be said enough,
    there are delays in insurance payments that are
    absolutely unwarranted, extensive delays for
    hearings in this compensation system.  The
    insurance companies delay payments, there is no
    penalty assessed unless there is an order.  There
    is no order that can be given by any commissioner
    unless you have a formal hearing.
    Right now the average wait for a formal hearing in
    the State of Connecticut is two to five years.  You
    can wait that long without any income and without
    any penalties against the insurance companies
    before you see any money.
    (Inaudible) can lead to corruption even though
    they're not supposed to. Physicians do refuse to
    continue to see or accept workers' compensation
    claims. A thought that's been brought up by the
    banking commission and the insurance industry in
    order to sell their policies which is going to be a
    double edged sword.  70% of all home foreclosures
    in the United States are a direct result of
    disability.
    If you bring in the economy, that's one thing but
    once you starting looking at why workers'
    compensation isn't working and they have to put
    that house in the foreclosure in the State of
    Connecticut.  Connecticut is the wage in per capita
    income in the nation, but our worker's comp is not
    the highest.  It's running between 13th and 17th
    depending on what information you want to use.  We
    are asking workers to give more of their income
    after losing their pension and ability for
    promotion to live on less money with no money to
    social security taxes and half care has now been
    refused leaving our families and children without
    insurance.  There is no sense of security and
    additional emotional strain on family and adverse
    affect on the whole process.
    If you want to reduce the workers' benefits, then
    we might as well turn around and ask the union
    representatives in over 9 union employees to run up
    our plan of wages, so we can (inaudible) in the
    State of Connecticut.  The two are equivalent.
    They are not separate.  If you're going to reduce
    worker's benefits, then you reduce overall wages
    paid to their employees in the State of
    Connecticut.  Employers realize that there's a
    higher cost of living in the State of Connecticut.
    That's one reason why we have higher wages here.
    We can go to Florida and cut everything by 50%.
    Despite a $51 million reduction in benefits last
    year, workers' compensation rates have been turned
    to 22% increase in premiums this year.  38% of all
    premiums collected are paid to workers' benefits.
    The rest are retained by the insurance companies,
    and other medical expenses.  The price of the
    system encourages people to return to want to sue
    causing a second injury after 104 weeks which
    encourages people to return to work too soon,
    causing a second injury after 104 weeks, which then
    makes the state liable.
    That's what's in closing.  I will be brief.  I just
    want to state that at this time I don't feel that
    the state wants to justify a labor versus business
    environment.  What we need to do is to get labor
    and business together to refund the insurance
    practice and the state administration on the staff
    which was from what I understand from lots of
    testimony we've heard here tonight, and I want to
    implore this Committee to kill this bill and to get
    a more object and a more thought out plan and more
    time for the constituency to respond.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you very much, Alison.  (applause),
    and I would point out that the overwhelming
    majority of the proposals that are being considered
    deal with the issues you have raised as opposed to
    simply cutting benefits.  That's a point well
    taken, and any questions from members of the
    Committee?  Thank you very much.
ALISON SYLVIA:  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Next is Dan Tommasi, followed by bill
    Illingworth and Ben Cozzi.   And if, I'm sorry,
    there's another license plate I didn't read, it's a
    red Pontiac, 985 HKT.  Apparently you are blocking
    someone.  Apologies, Dan.  Go ahead.
DAN TOMMASI:  Good evening.  I'm with the group of
    injured people, the Injured Connecticut People for
    Workers Rights.  I have been on comp for 11 months.
    I am not in the union.  I've had my pay cut from
    $900 to $550 a week.  I have a wife and and three
    small children.  We now have not health benefits.
    Last Saturday my wife had to go to Manchester
    Memorial Hospital for tests which I understand is
    going to cost close to $2,000 and I have no health
    insurance so I haven't the slightest idea who's
    going to pay for this.
    As (inaudible) told you before, we're losing our
    homes, and we're going into the poor house.  I
    believe that workers' comp needs to be reformed,
    but it has to be done in a different way.  The only
    people that are getting rich on workers'
    comp are the doctors and insurance companies.
    We're not the one that's making all the money.
    Although we are not hurting the system, but we're
    putting a thing in the system, but it's not our
    faults.  We did not ask to be hurt.  We're just
    people that want to live and we want to survive.
    (Inaudible) to CBIA that spends $91,000 for 12
    signs all over the State of Connecticut to reform
    workers' comp.  That $91,000 would have gone a long
    way to teach people safety on the job, so people
    wouldn't have been hurt.  I just about had it.  As
    far as I'm concerned the CBIA, they have to get
    together and do what they've got to do, but they
    can't hurt us any more.  91 reform did not help the
    people.  It helped the insurance companies.  They
    are the only ones that are making out in this.  My
    pay has been cut 2/3, and now they want to cut it
    again.  How do they expect me to live?
    I wonder how they would feel if someone came along
    to them like Zoe Baird, who makes what, $504,000.
    :  $507.
DAN TOMMASI:  Excuse me, $507,000.  If someone wants to
    come along to her and say okay, we're taking 2/3 of
    your pay whether you like it or not, and then we're
    going to cut it some more, because you have an
    illegal alien babysitting for your kids.  It's just
    not fair.  We just cannot take any more of this.
    There's many people who are in that group.  Of over
    100 people, I can count 25 that are having their
    houses foreclosed.  It's caused 12 divorces from
    people that I know and another one on the way.  We
    just can't take cuts any more.  We just can't.
    You're going to have to work on this somehow, but
    the people can't suffer.  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you, Dan.  Senator Colapietro.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Just one quick comment, Dan.  That's
    $96,000 they paid according to Mr. Rothgaber.
DAN TOMMASI:  $96,000.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Right.
DAN TOMMASI:  Close to a hundred thousand, how's that?
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Plus tax.
REP. LAWLOR:  William Illingworth, followed by Ben
    Cozzi and Steve Johnson.
BILL ILLINGWORTH:  That's Ben Cousy, Mr. Chairman.
REP. LAWLOR:  Oh, sorry.
BILL ILLINGWORTH:  My name is Bill Illingworth, and I'm
    the business manager of (inaudible) workers local
    424 here in New Haven, and I'm also a member of the
    Executive Board of the New Haven Central labor
    council.  Mr. Co-Chairman, and members of the
    Committee, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to
    (Testimony inaudible - mic buzzing)
    Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you, Bill, and I'm not sure about
    C, but A, B, and D and definite part of our
    proposals and we've discussed these many times and
    we're hopeful that they'll be included in the final
    package.  It's certainly clearly a goal of mine at
    least, and I'm sure that those will be part of the
    ultimate package.  Before there are any questions
    from the Committee, another car, a brown Ford,
    443560.  You are also blocking someone in.
    Questions from the Committee?  Thank you.
BILL ILLINGWORTH:  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Ben Cozzi.
BEN COZZI:  As long as I'm not in trouble.  Honorable
    co-chairs, members of the Committee, ladies and
    gentlemen, my name is Ben Cozzi, I'm the Executive
    Vice President of the Connecticut State Building
    and Construction Trades Council and I'm here to
    endorse the AFL-CIO positions on workers'
    comp, unemployment compensation and prevailing wage
    in general, and I'd like to speak in particular to
    Raised SB1017, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A STATE FUND FOR
    WORKERS' COMPENSATION.
    There's no doubt in my mind that the workers'
    compensation system in the State of Connecticut
    needs reform, but I would ask and from what I hear,
    you're giving great way to the position that it not
    be reformed on the backs of the working people in
    the State of Connecticut.  These the people when
    they enter this system that most need the benefits
    that the law is supposedly providing, and they
    cannot tolerate further cuts.  Instead look at the
    insurance companies and the doctors that are raping
    the system.  That's where I think the attention
    needs to be directed.
    Focusing on workers' comp in the construction
    industry, we have found that premium rate
    discrimination impacts the entire large class of
    higher paying construction employers because
    premiums are based on payroll dollars.  Higher
    paying contractors are being ground out of
    business, unable to fully compete due to this
    defacto subsidy of their lower paying and often
    less safe competitors.  The insurance industry
    reluctantly responding to governmental findings of
    premium rate discrimination in construction industry
    outrage over runaway costs has offered premium
    discounts for contractor payrolls exceeding varying
    threshold rates in selected states, but
    tenaciously clings to payroll versus hours worked
    as the basis for computing premiums.
    We feel the establishment of a state operated
    workers' compensation program to compete with the
    commercially offered workmen's comp policies.  In
    addition to the state fund, Connecticut should also
    for maximum efficiency and maximum competition
    provide for a three way system of sources for
    purchasing workmen's' compensation insurance.  Each
    three way system should have as an alternative
    providers of workmen's compensation coverage, the
    state formed private carriers and self insurance.
    The establishment of the three way system in
    Connecticut would provide price constraints by
    introducing greater competition.  The lack of
    bona-fide competition has been a major factor in the
    runaway costs of workmen's comp in recent years.
    In addition, I didn't hear the bell yet.  I'd just
    like to say on the waiting week for unemployment
    benefits, people in the construction industry are
    being devastated by a waiting week.  While I
    understand it's going, but I want to reiterate that
    position for the construction workers that are
    continually laid off six, eight or ten times a year
    with a waiting week that we need to strike.  Thank
    you very much.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you, Ben, and before we get to
    other questions, I'd just point out as you brought
    up the unemployment comp bill, it was reported out
    of Committee unanimously last week, and we did
    eliminate Governor Weicker's proposal to establish
    a one week waiting period.
BEN COZZI:  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Any other questions?  Thank you very
    much.  Next is, I'll just read the rest of the
    people on this page just so you know the order
    you're coming up in.  Steve Johnson, William
    Barrow, A. Carocci, Ellen Foley, Karyn Gil, Jenna
    Bonajuco, Denise Novak, Art Perlo, Nick Solimini,
    Rey Pompeno and Karen something.
    One more time on that, pardon me, it's a brown
    Ford, license plate number is 432560.  You are
    blocking someone in, so if you could please move
    the car.  Sorry, Steve, go ahead.
STEVEN JOHNSON:  Hello.  Good evening, my name is
    Steven Johnson, and I was thrilled that I was able
    to make it up to Hartford last week at the last
    public hearing.  A lot of things (inaudible) I was
    injured on the job in 1989 with a serious lung
    disease.  Since 1989 it seems like workers'
    compensation has not changed at all.  Presently
    workers' compensation pays me whenever they feel
    like paying me.
    Recently my health insurance benefits were
    cancelled due to the decision that the union and
    the state Supreme Court made.  To me the insurance
    companies, are (inaudible) and saying well, let him
    suffer, let him suffer, let him suffer.  I've been
    suffering for four years knowing that I will never
    ever in my life be able to go back to work.  I'm
    constantly spending a lot of my time at Yale-New
    Haven Hospital back and forth to the drug store.
    Recently we've been working for three months to get
    a hearing at workers' compensation here in New
    Haven.  The insurance company several times over
    the past several years they were either moving in
    the office, going on vacation and the (inaudible)
    we'll take care of the time later when we get back.
    My lungs were damaged due to many hours that I put
    into that factory in North Haven, the many seven
    days a week that I worked.  Now I have a major
    illness and it seems like no one wants to listen to
    my story.
    Being unemployed for four years, I still have the
    same phone that is not working.  I have not
    received any income since November of 1992.  What's
    going to happen at the hearing that's going to take
    place this Friday, I do not know.  I hope that the
    Labor Committee will listen to the stories of the
    injured workers because we need to receive no more
    cuts.  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you very much.  Are there questions
    from members of the Committee?  If not, thank you.
    Next is William Barrow.
WILLIAM BARROW:  My name is William Barrow.  My back
    got hurt at (inaudible) and I belongs to the
    Teamster Union, and I got hurt in 1957 and the
    issue that everybody seem to don't know recognize
    any more is the insurance company paying the
    doctors to write up two and three documents to keep
    from paying you your benefits.  There's got to be
    some kind of law against that.
    Now I went and wrote the Governor Wagner, I wrote
    Governor O'Neill, and all the other stories about
    the Commissioner here in New Haven, but would like
    to know if the insurance company doing is and the
    doctor is doing is who are you supposed to see to
    take care of this matter?  There's got to be some
    laws to stop them from doing this.  You give me one
    person that got hurt real bad, if it weren't for
    Social Security that they'd be out in the streets.
    I would just like to hear your comments behind
    that.  (inaudible) somebody that you can get in
    touch with that you people should be seeing for
    even taking the rights of people, because you just
    can't ignore the issues and (inaudible) your not
    only going to hurt the poor person.
REP. LAWLOR:  I'd be happy to respond to that, William,
    and as I said as we go on tonight, you find out
    about the specific proposals that are before us.
    One of the proposals we have is to set a special
    advocate within the insurance department, the
    person to whom you would call, whose job it would
    be to sort of ride rough shot over the insurance
    companies in terms of the rates they're setting for
    business number one, and their responsiveness to
    injured workers, number two.
    And in addition to that, it's just one of the
    proposals involves the penalties which I mentioned
    before for insurance companies who refuse to pay
    after they've been ordered to pay by the
    Commissioners.  That apparently is a big problem.
WILLIAM BARROW:  The thing I'm want to know now, what
    kind of laws do you have on the books to protect
    the working person?  I'm not talking about for
    later on.  I'm talking about now.  There's got to
    be some kind of law where this insurance company is
    liable to break the law and nothing happens to him.
REP. LAWLOR:  Unfortunately that's one of the problems
    we found out, and that's why I think the system
    needs to be overhauled.  There are not specific
    laws that will allow you in a situation like you
    find yourself in, to really adjust this.  I will
    ten by going through the workers' comp
    commissioners and unfortunately, that's a system
    filled with delays, and not enough of the types of
    penalties that get people moving quickly, so that's
    why we're here tonight.
WILLIAM BARROW:  I hope you do something to justify the
    wrongdoing that is being done to the working person
    in this world today.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you very much, William.  Next is A.
    Carocci and then Ellen Foley.
A. CAROCCI:  Good evening, members of the Commission,
    brothers and sisters in the audience.  I'm what you
    call a construction worker, and I pride myself on
    being your average guy, a homeowner with three
    kids, the whole deal.  I would like to (inaudible)
    this SB1013 a study of safety in the workplace.
    This is one of those threats.
    You keep the injuries down, you keep the claims
    down, you keep everything down.  That's number one.
    Number two is HB6818, the establishment of a work
    place safety and health committees.  I think you
    should have that already if you don't.  I know
    (inaudible) has been cut the budget.  I think that
    should be reinstated.  The reduction of workmen's
    compensation costs this HB7171.  I've had the
    misfortune of collecting workmen's compensation
    only once.
    I was burnt on my leg, and I heard the guy talk
    about two stitches for $200.  I have a burn like
    this on my leg, and I only collected it eight
    weeks.  I couldn't afford.  I would have liked to
    stay out a little longer, but I couldn't afford to
    be on workmen's comp.  I went back to work in pain,
    to feed my family.  I waited a long time too for
    that scar evaluation.  I went before this
    compensation commissioner.  He had glasses about as
    thick as Coke bottles and I went for the scar
    evaluation.  The first words out of his mouth, was
    what's that?  (Inaudible) for anybody, we
    definitely need reform in the system, and you're
    talking about having a statewide system.  That's
    fine, but you've got to realize something.  We're
    in Connecticut.  It's the insurance capital of the
    world.  It's going to take some doing.  It's fine
    and I think it's a good idea, but (inaudible)
    against fraud and these (inaudible) really do need
    it.
    (Inaudible) apartment house when he was collecting
    compensation.  They wanted to stop his
    compensation, they said okay, we'll take the
    apartment house.  That's about it.  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you.  Senator Colapietro.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Just one comment, sir.  I have to
    agree with you that loads of people are
    legitimately out on the workers' compensation.
    You definitely not abused and I agree with you 100%
    you ought to go after them, but most people are
    good people.  Most people just want to make a good
    living and survive until they can get back to work.
A. CAROCCI:  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Next is Ellen Foley, followed by Karyn
    Gil.
ELLEN FOLEY:  I thought this morning was never going to
    get here.  I'm here tonight on behalf of my
    husband, Ronald Foley (inaudible) husband and
    father of three who is totally disabled and on
    social security.  He was diagnosed with (inaudible)
    disease on May 31st, 1990, from (inaudible)
    exposure (inaudible) in a large automobile
    dealership in North Stratford in a safe (inaudible)
    environment.  He was the second person to evolve
    this chemical disease in three months in this
    dealership (inaudible).
    No one will talk to us know because there's not a
    lot of (inaudible) because he's totally disabled.
    This is totally irrelevant to workers' comp because
    the first man took the settlement from the
    insurance company and left the State of Connecticut
    to live in Florida where it's cheaper. We are
    (inaudible) settle the case.
    We have battled this case for 33 months, 16 days, 2
    hours and about 33 minutes (inaudible) as first
    class citizens of the State of Connecticut, people
    (inaudible).  My husband had two jobs so that I
    could stay home and raise the children.  Thank God,
    I listened to my father and went to college, was
    able to get out and get a job (inaudible)
    hospitalized when he originally came down with this
    disease.
    My husband's not here this evening for (inaudible)
    these signs up this evening.  I'll read them in
    case someone can't see them.  Warning - (inaudible)
    production may be hazardous to your health,
    marriage and family.  My husband is an engineer.
    He's not only lost his health, but he's lost his
    credit, his right (inaudible), his feeling that
    he's a man, and most important he's lost his pride.
    His belief that he is (inaudible) in speaking in
    front of a group of people to tell them how he
    feels and what happened and the garbage that he has
    had to go through to in the workmen's compensation
    system.
    It is totally pathetic.  We have (inaudible).  Let
    me give you all a tip.  Folks, Jesse Frankel, would
    be (inaudible).  You have to scream and you have to
    tell them what's going on in your lives and what
    you are losing, that somehow you'd better hear him,
    because I have done it.  What happens in the State
    of Connecticut where they follow up this
    compensation case is that you get sued.  Last week,
    a knock on my door the insurance adjuster sued us.
    Actually I should say the Connecticut Guarantee
    Insurance Association sued my husband and the
    employers and the insurance companies and the
    adjuster for the insurance companies because they
    believe that the workers' compensation commission
    does not have the subject matter jurisdiction to
    interpret their plan (inaudible).
    For those of you don't know the (inaudible) was put
    into place in 1971 and it is supposed to guarantee
    payment of claimant's' claims when an insurance
    company who is a carrier for a person (inaudible)
    job goes bankrupt which was the case in my
    husband's case.  They were a lot of carryovers who
    went bankrupt.  Cigna does not want to be forced to
    pay any claims so they sued for half (inaudible),
    and that's the 17th document served to me
    (inaudible).  We're living in my parents' house,
    and after having seen him shaking I took it from
    him and because I'm a contract consultant I was
    able to interpret that it was basically a bunch of
    bs.  Part of the system to try and scare people
    off.  They try to rob the system as quickly as
    possible.
    (Inaudible) we have families that are trying to
    stay together. They're fighting for some support
    care and (inaudible) and in CGIA or (inaudible)
    because CGIA, was a carrier for this company
    (inaudible). Every time they would go to inspect
    the premises, they'd called first. Now give me a
    break.  Out came the gloves, out came the bs that
    supposedly is supposed to be worn on a basis and
    supplied to these people, and it wasn't there
    unless they got the phone call tell them they were
    coming.  (Inaudible) for almost three years.
    (inaudible - buzz on mic)
    The insurance companies are making money.  They are
    making money.  So are the attorneys.  The workers
    are not getting paid.  My husband hasn't received
    one chunk, a tiny chunk, (inaudible) by the
    Commissioner because he could not believe that this
    man with three children had not received any money
    and this thing was still in battles.  (Inaudible)
    for SB103. Until we do this, we will continue to
    have people whose lives are destroyed (inaudible).
    You talk about (inaudible)  We need to see that
    these are people's lives.  They're not a matter of
    what side of the competition, what's to this and
    what's to that.
    I'm lucky. Believe it or not, I work for an
    insurance company, a very large one.  Thank God, I
    do because my husband would be dead if I didn't.
    They probably wouldn't pay his health insurance,
    because I work for a large company they took him
    with his preexisting conditions.  He takes 11
    medications a day.  I just want you to remember all
    (inaudible) I'm speaking to tonight, that this
    could happen to you, it could settle in your lap in
    a New York minute.
    What you want to believe, the people that are here
    tonight that are injured and my husband and
    everyone else in the State of Connecticut who is
    attempting to battle for what is right and due to
    them, they did not choose to have their bodies
    altered (inaudible).  They did not choose to have
    their jobs or their families to be taken away from
    them, their homes, their credit.  I have been
    hospitalized four times in the last four years, and
    I've (inaudible).
    That's all from stress.  I take these bills so I
    can sleep at night.  Why?  Because if I don't
    sleep, I don't get up and I don't go to work to
    take care of the (inaudible).  Could I turn around
    and sue these (inaudible) or our marriage or our
    family?  No.  Something has to change.  The system
    is pathetic, and it's wrong.  (inaudible)  They're
    sitting there and their heads are down.  I don't
    know if they're under the influence of something or
    what, but these guys are out to lunch, and when you
    have to face the Commissioner, and you have to go
    in there and plead and beg for somebody to come in
    and sit down and listen, so this Commissioner sees
    that there's somebody else in there watching me,
    that's a pretty pathetic system.
    We're not (inaudible), I don't know if you know
    this, but I found this out because I tried to file
    a formal complaint because of some irrational
    things that were being allowed to take place on
    behalf of the insurance carriers, which would have
    never happened if we had tried to do them.  There
    is no formal complaint form in the State of
    Connecticut, if you want to file a complaint
    against the Workers' Compensation System and how it
    is operating.
    If you want to write a letter, that's fine.
    (inaudible), but there is no form.  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Ellen, I'd just like to address a number
    of things you've said.  First of all, with OSHA, I
    think we'd all agree that OSHA's dramatically under
    funded, and it's very unfortunate.  However, we can
    assume perhaps the new administration in Washington
    that will change soon.
ELLEN FOLEY:  Soon is not enough.  Soon is already too
    late.  I have to beg with you.  Soon is not enough.
    We are standing out here.  If people are losing
    their homes, people are committing suicide because
    people cannot wait anymore.  Continue, please.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you.  Under our proposal, as was
    pointed out early in the hearing, that workers'
    compensation system came into being about 70 years
    ago in most states as a matter of fact, and it was
    a tradeoff, it was essentially a no fault system
    and the tradeoff was working people gave up their
    right to sue their employers, and instead a no
    fault system was developed so that regardless of
    whether the employer was negligent or not, anybody
    injured in the work place would be able to in
    theory get compensation from the system.
    We have proposed making a change in that, and that
    will be for employers who are guilty of multiple
    OSHA violations...
ELLEN FOLEY:  You have to have three.
REP. LAWLOR:  If I could just finish.  I'm talking
    about what we're proposing.  Multiple violations,
    then you'd be able to sue the employer directly.
    With regard to the new chairman of the Workers'
    Compensation System, Chairman Frankel. I think
    everyone who dealt with him agrees that he has
    taken a dramatically new course and over the past
    year has promulgated a wide variety of regulations,
    all of which are intended to make the system work
    more smoothly, and I think most people who have
    dealt with him agree that he is at least made a
    start in moving things in the right direction.
    Testimony is evidence of that, and finally with
    regard to complaints against Commissioners,
    Workers' Comp Commissioners, if it wasn't
    appropriately channeled through the Judicial Review
    Council, they may not have been able to tell, but
    that in fact is the law.
    There is a proposal currently before the Judiciary
    Committee to make sure that there are experts in
    Workers' Comp who are also members of the Judicial
    Review Council because as a practical matter,
    Worker's Comp Commissioners are in the same status
    as charges in our system.  However, there is no
    expertise on the Judicial Review Council that know
    anything about procedures in the Workers' Comp
    system, so that is being remedied at the moment
    through a separate bill that's not before our
    Committee, but before a different Committee, so I
    just wanted to give you at least an insight on four
    parts of legislation.
ELLEN FOLEY:  I have spoken up and honestly I'm not
    exactly quiet, but I've spoken up on a couple of
    former hearings with questions regarding some of
    the things that were allowed to take place with
    respect to the other attorneys (inaudible) this is
    not a judicial system.  I need all the help I can
    help (inaudible).  She allowed things to take place
    that should not have been allowed to take place.
    (Inaudible) lots of these people here tonight and
    hopefully it will lead to success.  I also believe
    that the answers to all of her questions and all of
    her problems lie within the (inaudible) and the
    people on the Labor Committee, and if you just sit
    there, you think, and you ask yourself questions,
    look at the facts, listen to the people and trust
    your heart, and trust what you feel.
    Do what is right for the people. (Inaudible)
    injured people in the State of Connecticut
    (inaudible) serious illnesses, phony clinically
    oriented were unable to document to a certain
    degree because it's not AIDS. There's very little
    scientific studies being done, but that should not
    make this case (inaudible). I can tell you if this
    goes on much longer that there will be a lot more
    press. Just listen to what the people are saying
    because they can't take it any more.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you very much.  Next is Karyn Gil,
    followed by Jenna Bonojuso.
KARYN GIL:  Hi.  I'd like to approach you on just one,
    this isn't part of what I wanted to say, but in
    response to Ellen with regard to what's proposed,
    you did make the statement that you were going to
    get OSHA in, and if there were three violations to
    OSHA, that you can sue your employer.  Well, prior
    to that statement, you said that OSHA's just been
    underfunded and can't keep with what they're doing
    already, and you are hoping that funding will come
    for this.  Now you have to look our point of view.
    Every OSHA law is broken.
    I didn't know that until a six month period was
    over with, so it was really (inaudible) with OSHA,
    so I'm going to (inaudible) OSHA's a disaster, and
    how would you like to be one of those three people
    that had to be carried off before that fourth
    person can come along and sue that employer.  I
    think it shouldn't be really one person that would
    hurt to take.  If it's not gross negligence, that
    person has no business operating their business in
    this state and should not have this protected
    (inaudible) that workmen's comp is set up for them.
    Stop hurting those good people who are hiring
    people and training them, because that's who's
    being hurt right now, and that's what slows a lot
    of jobs.  So I'm sorry.  I had to sound off because
    it really, you have to listen to what you're
    saying.
REP. LAWLOR:  You understand I assume that right now,
    you can't sue your employer no matter what.
KARYN GIL:  No, you can't.
REP. LAWLOR:  And this step we were suggesting as one
    of our proposals is very very controversial, and it
    would be very difficult to achieve.  I agree with
    you in practice that...
KARYN GIL:  It's just another thing.  I'm sorry,
    (inaudible) , but I don't think it's going to work.
    I don't think it's going to stop those injuries
    from happening.
REP. LAWLOR:  Would you tell me what the reason for the
    system such as it is was to establish a no fault
    system so that no one would, it wouldn't matter
    whose fault it was.  You could always.
KARYN GIL:  I can appreciate that.  I appreciate that a
    great deal, but when somebody has no regard
    whatsoever for human safety, not only employees
    such as myself, but for those people who walk
    through the doors.  No one thinks about them, but
    if they do get injured the way I did, they would
    own this business right now, but my life is not
    worth that much because I was paid.
    I don't see (inaudible), but I just want, the OSHA
    thing really bothers me because I've been through
    an OSHA disaster, and I should probably just tell
    you, I've been in worker's comp for ten years now.
    Through no fault of my own and gross negligence as
    I already stated, I have become permanently
    disabled from (inaudible) exposure to chlorine gas,
    and it has been quite a struggle and when I come
    here to speak to you as lawmakers, I'm only asking
    one thing, and that is what was written up in 1913
    about safety?  Where was safety for me?  Where has
    it been since my accident?  Because I know for a
    fact nothing has changed, and that really disturbs
    me.
    I was very young when this happened to me, and you
    don't know what the consequences are because you do
    not get high comp rates. I keep hearing comp rates
    are going to be cut back.  How do you cut back on
    $93.35 a week as a comp rate?  And all these people
    that are getting this astronomical amount, if they
    become injured at their work place, why do you feel
    it necessary to punish those people who have
    achieved their highest amount of money that they're
    making in their lifetime to go on workmen's comp,
    get a third of that taken away, and now you want to
    take more.
    That is only turning the public don't achieve a
    high status. Stay very low because it doesn't
    matter. If you get injured, and it might happen and
    I'm afraid for every worker out there. It will
    happen as far as I see, because no changes have
    been made in 10 years, and I'm still going along,
    and I'm still fighting, and maybe what you have to
    look at is get a breakdown of the numbers, not of
    the certain percentage rate that's getting us high
    workmen's comp.
    Start looking at what percentage of the money in
    the workmen's comp system goes to OSHA's attorneys
    and I'm sorry but if the insurance companies were
    hurting so badly and not making so much money on
    workmen's comp, they would not be offering
    workmen's comp because I think we've all seen it
    happen with AIDS.  Anybody (inaudible) to AIDS, all
    of the sudden it's difficult for them to get
    insurance, and why is that?  Because insurance
    companies don't make a dime off of it.
REP. LAWLOR:  I don't think it's difficult.  I think
    it's impossible at the moment as a matter of fact.
KARYN GIL:  So, I'm sorry I had to go into my time, and
    I didn't get a chance to say the important things I
    wanted to say, but OSHA is a heartbreaker to me.
REP. LAWLOR:  I understand.
KARYN GIL:  Okay?
REP. LAWLOR:  Any questions?  Thank you very much.
    Jenna Bonajuco followed by Denise Novak and then
    Art Perlo.  Jenna Bonajuco.  Denise Novak.  Art
    Perlo.  After Art is Nick Solomini and Ray Pompano.
ART PERLO:  Representatives and Senators, I'd like to
    read a statement by (inaudible) the Connecticut
    Communist Party.  The leadership of the (inaudible)
    is crucial for working people employed and
    unemployed in Connecticut today.  We look to you to
    descend and extend the living standards of working
    people, and all (inaudible)  workers to (inaudible)
    to improve the quality of life in the cities and
    towns.  The mandate of the elections was to turn
    around the kickbacks and giveaways of the past 12
    long years.  The CBIA's campaign to worker's
    compensation and unemployment compensation will
    only further cut the (inaudible) and security of
    the people whose work is the foundation of our
    state economy.
    Instead of (inaudible) to this kind of blackmail,
    we need to send a strong message from Connecticut
    to Washington in favor of national standards that
    would stop the (inaudible) of workers from one
    state against another.  The right to employment is
    the most basic right for us.  (Inaudible) cut
    unemployment compensation costs is a program for
    job creation and full employment.  The agenda of
    the Labor Committee should be determined by the
    state of emergency refinish to the possibility of
    tens of thousands of workers being laid off this
    year from Pratt and Whitney, Electric Boat, the
    submarine base and other small (inaudible) across
    Connecticut.  The 200,000 jobs lost in the last
    four years.
    Legislation that takes the rights from workers
    should be rejected.  Instead, it has (inaudible)
    unemployment compensation including the (inaudible)
    bill --
(cass 2) (cassettes 2 and 3 don't connect, small gap)
    -- workers compensation costs.  Short of that we
    should eliminate the private insurance companies
    from the state system.  The most important
    (inaudible) to improved health and safety on the
    job is union representation.  (inaudible) of the
    CBIA is designed to weaken the rights of unions and
    to (inaudible) workers who injured on the job.
    We submit for your consideration the proposal for a
    Connecticut economic bill of rights which would
    guarantee housing, health care, education,
    employment and equality for all as basic human
    rights.  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you Art.  You mentioned one very
    important thing and just in case any one is
    interested this coming Thursday is our final public
    hearing at the Capitol we'll involve a lot of
    worker retraining bills that have, I was elected
    to the legislature seven years ago when people
    talked about what would happen if the cold war ever
    ended what would happen to the workers in the
    defense industry.  All too many people ignored that
    and dismissed that as not likely to happen and as a
    consequence here we are seven years later, people
    are being laid off at Electric Boat and elsewhere
    and there's no safety net for those folks and I
    think that's a point well taken and certainly it's
    probably too little too late but we're setting
    about that later on this week.
    Any other questions.  Thank you. Next is Nick
    Solimini and then Ray Pampano and then Karen who's
    name unfortunately I cannot read, but she is from
    OPEIU 153.
NICK SOLIMINI:  My name is Nick Solimini I'm speaking
    on behalf of all the people out of work (inaudible)
    safety (inaudible recording equipment not operating
    properly)  This is a Xerox copy of a newspaper
    article why the companies are paying so much money.
    Here's a company which I won't mention the name
    that's paying $21,000 (inaudible) This company was
    paying (inaudible) This company shouldn't have
    gotten past the second violation without loosing
    its insurance certificate.
    It's not the fault of us, (inaudible) This is the
    safety.  (inaudible) I didn't go on workers comp, I
    worked, I worked 6 weeks (inaudible)  Six weeks
    later I (inaudible) because I just couldn't stand
    the pain and I had two busted discs in my back.
    This is the problem.  And every Friday they come
    out with a safety paper the boss comes (inaudible)
    That's why the insurance companies are paying.  Not
    only that the insurance companies force you to get
    a lawyer.  I'm helping a friend of me in my union
    now, in fact I'm going to represent him, not as an
    attorney, but I'm going to represent him because of
    workmen's comp.
    These lawyers, I have a friend of mine in the
    Hartford Group (inaudible) fifteen weeks.  The
    insurance companies (inaudible)  This is what I
    would like to see.  After the second violation
    (inaudible) I don't care if they've got three
    people working for them.  (inaudible)  Look at the
    violations, five violations, this guy got $11
    million on one, he's paying $200,000 for insurance,
    he don't care he's got $11 million worth of work.
    That's why they're getting away with it.  It's the
    insurance company, these bad companies.  With all
    due respect there's good companies too, but that's
    what's happening.  Bad companies, they make you do
    unsafe things.  (inaudible) This is why the
    insurance companies are paying out this money.  Why
    do the insurance companies go investigate this
    company?  Five violations, where was the insurance
    company?  (inaudible)
    This guy should never work in construction again.
    (inaudible)  Even the insurance company should say,
    what are you doing?  The insurance companies don't
    care.  That is why they're paying out the money,
    because of companies like this.  I think that they
    should (inaudible) Where is CBIA, I don't see
    anybody from CBIA here.  What would they say about
    this?  They're worrying about companies moving out.
    (inaudible)
REP. LAWLOR:  Thanks Nick.  Any questions?  Thank you.
    Next is Ray Pompano and then Karen.
NICK SOLIMINI:  Hi Mike.  (inaudible) local 243 which
    represents the  (inaudible)  We have a self insured
    company and that was one of your questions earlier.
    In 1989 our workers comp cost, I believe it cost
    the company $200,000.  In 1990, it was $800,000.  I
    want to assure you, that money didn't go to the
    workers.  That money went to, they had to pay a
    carrier, even though they're self-insured, they had
    to pay a carrier, they had to pay premiums.
    It went to the carriers and it went to the doctors.
    The workers make out, they're not getting rich.
    In October of 1991, the state legislators reduced
    the benefits for workers and we found out that
    again the insurance companies when up 9%.
    (inaudible)  What we have to do is now go after the
    doctors and the insurance companies.  When  we can
    (inaudible) The we could do something for these
    poor people.  Like I heard the young man say that
    they cut off his insurance.  His health insurance
    and as you know Mike I spoke of that law, 31-484,
    because a month and a half ago our company did not
    go after the people who are on long term workers
    comp.
    I received six calls (inaudible) These are people
    who can no longer come back to work.  Now my
    suggestion to the Committee (inaudible) a fund that
    could protect these injured workers after so many
    weeks where it could be a fund to cover their
    health care for them and their family.  It would be
    a blessing to these people who no longer could
    work when through no fault of their they get
    injured on the job.  And I'm not going to talk long
    about a lot of the workers comp problem, because a
    lot of good points were made tonight.
    Again, we can't allow our citizens who get injured
    in the shop, on the job to go without health care
    insurance.  It is devastating to them, the young
    lady lost her home, and we know that there's
    divorces involved when they can't make payments.  I
    know the suicides involved.  We're pleading with
    the legislators (inaudible) whether it's a
    secondary fund or a fund where we could set aside
    for these people who loose their health care.
    And maybe we could do it by going after the greedy
    doctors, the greedy lawyers, and the greedy
    insurance companies and leave the workers alone.
    Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you Ray, and one other item since
    you brought it up, we can talk about one of the
    proposals that's in the package before us tonight.
    We're dealing with just the problem that you've
    outlined.  I think probably not everybody in the
    room understands what happened with that supreme
    court decision but very briefly.  Connecticut is
    one of only 6 states in the country, believe it or
    not, which requires employers to maintain health
    insurance benefits (inaudible) while they're out
    and it has to be maintained at whatever the
    existing policy was on the date of the injury.
    We require to be retained for the entire time the
    worker is out on comp.  The other 44 states have no
    such requirement and we're the only state that
    required it for however long you're out.  Employers
    in Washington, D.C. challenged a similar law in
    Washington which required employers to keep
    coverage for 18 months, not for as long as your
    out, but only up to 18 months.  And the United
    State Supreme Court declared that, that law and our
    law in effect were unconstitutional.
    Not because their law was wrong but because it was,
    as they say, pre-empted by a federal (inaudible)
    which is very much a lawyer technicality which none
    the less makes our law unenforceable.  And what we
    have proposed here to get around that, first of all
    (inaudible).  That would solve the problem in a
    minute, more important though is calculating in the
    amount of benefits and amount equivalent to what
    the cost would have been for a (inaudible) health
    insurance policy through your employer.
    You would be able to pay out of your benefits for
    that same insurance simply to be continued.  So
    it's a way around the ARISSA law and that is one of
    the proposals here tonight.  (inaudible)  So that
    you could essentially continue to pay it on your
    own and (inaudible) but the more comprehensive
    proposal and solution is what I prefer, for many
    reasons, is comprehensive and universal health
    insurance throughout the whole country whether
    you're working or not.  And that's something
    President Clinton has indicated he's working on.
    But that's not going to happen tomorrow, we all
    know that.
    This is something which is being considered,
    whether it's do-able or not we'll find out down the
    road.  I just want you know that's one of the
    proposals before us.
    i
NICK SOLIMINI:  Alright Mike, but that is a big
    concern.  Because when people cannot go back to
    work or loose their health care, it's devastating.
    I also want to compliment all you's for not passing
    that bill to abolish that one week of compensation.
    We shut down every Christmas and there's 750
    workers that are grateful for that decision.
    There's a lot of people out there that are very
    grateful.
REP. LAWLOR:  Back to the health insurance, just
    because the Supreme Court said that you don't have
    to do it doesn't mean that you have to cancel it.
    Employers are, you know they're not required to
    cancel and many employers are continuing it and we
    certainly applaud them, but (inaudible).
NICK SOLIMINI:  But what they're offering (inaudible).
REP. LAWLOR:  (inaudible) Thank you.  Karen from OPEIU.
     And just so everybody knows we're on the second
    and final sheet after Karen testifies and on that
    sheet it looks like Rosemary Carey, Ray Henion,
    Tammy MacFadeyn, Phillip Raymond and Diane
    Lauricella, I apologize.
KAREN CURTIN-HOOD:  My name is Karen Curtin-Hood, I'm
REP. LAWLOR:  If we could have it a little quiet for a
    moment so we can hear Karen's testimony thank you.
KAREN CURTAIN-HOOD:  I just basically wanted to
    reinforce that I do support the state AFL-CIO's
    proposal sent for workers compensation before us.
    And the state fund sounds even more attractive as
    we're, I've listened to a lot of other testimony, I
    could go on and on but everybody else has covered
    everything basically.  I just want to support this
    state AFL-CIO's position.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you very much Karen, any other
    questions.  Next is Rosemary Carey followed by Ray
    Henion.
ROSEMARY CAREY:  Good evening, my name is Rosemary
    Carey and I'm a member of Local 34.  I work at Yale
    University, and I'm a steward.  And there's a lot
    of things that have been spoken of tonight which
    are quite serious and immediate for many of the
    people who have spoken this evening.  I want to
    speak about one particular thing that's going on at
    Yale.  Yale is one of the largest employers,
    probably the largest employer in New Haven.  I'm
    part of a union that has 2500 clerical and
    technical workers.
    And there is a syndrome called carpal tunnel, just
    up to a few years ago wasn't even considered
    anything serious.  There's an awful lot of people
    at Yale who have gone through operations who wear
    braces for a lot of the work that they do, it's
    mostly repetitive work.  For the longest time, Yale
    would not recognize that this was a problem, until
    there was some kind of experiments and that kind of
    thing done.  Now we're finding that it's growing at
    a very fast rate.  There's many people that I work
    with that, are, they're younger, they're are some
    that are not quite as young.
    It seems to hit people at different ages.  One of
    the problems is it isn't just clerical workers that
    seem to be affected by this type of thing.  There's
    a lot of repetitive work that's done at Yale in the
    other local which is Local 35.  And they're finding
    they're having problems with their electricians and
    their plumbers, painters, that anybody that does
    the same type of work day in and day out, hour
    after hour.  And I think one of the ways that we
    can help keep the costs down for people that are
    injured on the job is to make a company like Yale
    which has billions of dollars accountable.
    They don't want to recognize the fact that if you
    sit on a chair that isn't appropriate that you will
    become, well you would probably have back problems,
    you can also get problems in your shoulders, you
    can get problems in your hands.  In the Yale Law
    School where I work, a few years back, most of the
    secretaries' chairs were, I would say probably 20
    years old.   And there was a complaint that there
    were a lot of problems with some of their backs.
    There was one woman who was out for weeks because
    she had a lot of numbness in her leg up into her
    hip.  Which was proven by here doctor down the road
    that it was because she had a very bad chair, it
    wasn't adjustable.  So what they did in the law
    school is they had all the chairs reupholstered and
    they brought us down and they tried to make us
    believe that all these chairs were brand new.  And
    of course they weren't brand new, they were only
    reupholstered.  But they have been, the  pillows
    have never been fixed.  They only recovered them.
    And of course the problems continued.  So then what
    we did was we signed these petitions and we went
    around to all the faculty in the school and we got
    everybody involved and actually shamed them into
    buying us all new chairs.  Now I think if you could
    use that on a higher level and bring to the
    attention of the employee or the employer I should
    say, that it is important for people to have the
    correct tools to work with.  A good typewriter, a
    keyboard, the right height in your chairs, that it
    would be cheaper for them to spend $75 or $100
    today to buy somebody a decent piece of equipment
    than it would be to have them go on a workmen's
    compensation over a period of 10 or even 15 years.
    I would like to thank you for coming down here
    tonight.  I think it's very important that people
    feel that they're being listened to.  I also want
    you to know that I think that with people, in
    unions in particular, that we're going to be
    watching very closely.  And that hopefully you'll
    have these types of things again that we can come
    to.  So that we won't have to get ourselves up in
    arms and maybe march on the capitol to come and see
    you.  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you Rosemary.  Senator Colapietro.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Yeah, I just want to make a statement
    before everybody leaves.  You're looking at what's
    left of a committee that is the envy of no one at
    the capitol.  And there isn't anybody that would
    fight Mike or arm wrestle either one of us to take
    the chairs of this committee.   But I just want you
    to know that there are some good people on this
    committee.  There are people who care about
    workers, we've listened and listened since we've
    been elected.
    We're listening to you and we're going to put
    together a bill that will be comprehensible and
    fair.  And I think that this is the first time, and
    I've been involved in legislating, not as a
    legislator but as a lobbyist for the union on
    workers compensation, unemployment compensation and
    I know what it's like being on both sides of the
    coin.  Up here you have an air of people that are
    sitting, working real hard trying to put together,
    and I don't think there's a tougher bunch than Mike
    and myself and I consider diehards that are left
    here.
    But we're with you and we're trying to put together
    something that makes sense for a change and looks
    at the real problems that we have to face in
    workers comp.
REP. LAWLOR:  And let me just add, I neglected to
    mention earlier the ranking member on the House
    side is Representative Curt Andrews from Hamden who
    had planned on coming tonight, he was, he's also a
    volunteer fire fighter and called me on the way
    down here indicating that he was in the process of
    pulling with a bunch of his colleagues some people
    out of ditch off the highway on I91 in Hamden and
    had not arranged for a babysitter that night for
    his children so that's why he's not here with us
    tonight.
    Next is Ray Henion followed by Tammy MacFadeyn,
    Phil Raymond and Diane Lauricella and those are the
    only people we have signed up so next is Ray
    Henion.
RAY HENION:  Good evening, I'd like to thank you for
    the time you're going to give me.  On the ARISSA
    problem that had occurred with the
    unconstitutionality of the law on the workers comp
    31-284B.  When you do take that into consideration,
    please look at it retroactively.  There's an awful
    lot of people that have medical bills that are
    unpaid that were actually had occurred prior to
    that date on the 14th of December 1992.
    And there's an awful lot of people out there now
    who still don't even know that they're affect by
    this.  I don't know how you could get the word out
    to them.  But they're under the impression that
    they do have medical coverage when they do not.  I
    have a tape here that I'd like the Committee to
    take a chance to view at one time.  This here
    addresses the problem with stress with the police
    department.
    This tape was done out of Houston and New York City
    and this will prove the fact that stress causes
    more death in the police department than any other
    injury whatsoever.  Being shot or whatever the case
    may be.  There's also some medical footage on here
    that deals with the Jackson-Hole proposal.  It's
    sort of a national health care system that they
    were playing with.
    The New England Journal of Medicine, there is a
    physician who speaks on that issue and he says
    there is no way this is going to fly. They also
    believe that in the near future that it will be at
    least three years before we even begin to look at a
    national health care system.  I'm not going to take
    up any more of your time.  You know what I've said
    in the past, and please take a good look at this
    and if you wouldn't mind if you get time to look at
    this, it's 90 minutes total.  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you Ray, and Sean will take it from
    you and make sure that it's made available to all
    of us.  Thank you.  Next is  Tammy MacFadeyn
    followed by  Phil Raymond and Diane Lauricella.
TAMMY MACFADEYN:  Good evening.  I really didn't have
    any intention of speaking tonight but Senator
    Colapietro sort of called me to the table as it
    were.  Let me practice my remarks and excuse me
    Committee but I would like to preface this remark
    to the audience here.  For those of you who don't
    know me I'm the secretary-treasurer of the state
    AFL-CIO.  I spend almost as many hours at the
    capitol as the Committee does, because I'm the
    chief legislative spokes person for the labor
    movement.
    But I want you to know that these are your
    friends, these are the people who are going to do
    what they possibly can do to help you.  Hopefully
    they're going to get together with the rest of
    their Committee and they're going to develop a bill
    which we're going to like.  But that's not going to
    make the bill law.  What's going to make the bill
    law is getting the rest of the House of
    Representatives to approve it and the Senate.
    And that's where our work is going to be cut out
    for us.  We're going to have to take whatever good
    bill they're able to pass out of their Committee
    and get it passed through the rest of the
    legislature.  And that's going to be a much bigger
    chore.  So I just thank you for a couple of minutes
    to be able to say that.   What I basically wanted
    to talk a little bit about was what has happened
    since the reform two years ago.
    And to clear up one little question and that is
    what I have signed in agreement two years ago if I
    had know (inaudible) signed any agreement two years
    ago.  Two years ago we were faced with two
    alternatives.  Loose more benefits, or accept a
    compromise.  We accepted the compromise thinking it
    was better to save what benefits we could and now
    we come two years later and those same benefits we
    were able to hold on to two years ago are right up
    in front of us on the table again.
    The same thing happened two years ago, (inaudible)
    to create hysteria to create misconceptions and
    they're doing the same thing now.  This Committee
    sees through that.  But the rest of the legislature
    does not.  So we need to do our work, all of us,
    with everyone at the capitol and to try and stop
    the misconceptions.  We have asked and we have had
    some conversations that maybe the solution has got
    to be business and labor sitting down in a closed
    room coming up with some kind of solution.  I don't
    know if that's going to work.
    But we would like to say that most of the things
    that did happen since two years ago that would have
    been beneficial have not taken place yet.  And
    that's medical cost containment hasn't had a
    chance, the administrative changes (inaudible) he's
    only been on the scene since last June.  So we're
    hoping that he'll even improve things more.  Thank
    you for your time.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you very much Tammy.
TAMMY MACFADEYN:  You're welcome.
REP. LAWLOR:  Questions?
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  You answered my question before I
    asked it.  I was going to ask if you would have
    signed off (inaudible).
TAMMY MACFADEYN:  No, I'm not surprised that the rates
    have continued to go up because there's no
    answerability.  We do not understand how rates are
    set and why the insurance commissioner continually
    approves rates when there's been no proof that it's
    necessary.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  And maybe you ought to look at taking
    labor and business sit down in a room without the
    insurance companies and (inaudible).
TAMMY MACFADEYN:  Definitely, no, the insurance company
    does not belong in there, you're right.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Thank you Tammy.
REP. LAWLOR:  Phil Raymond.
PHILLIP RAYMOND:  Gentlemen of the Committee, ladies
    and gentlemen.  I appreciate the opportunity to
    speak to you.  My name is Phillip Raymond, I'm the
    association manager of the Connecticut Iron Workers
    Employers Association.  I'm here to say two years
    ago I played a small part in that coalition.  And
    with just a few minor changes (inaudible) the
    coalition got too big, they got a whole bunch of
    insurance companies they got (inaudible) and they
    really attacked the legislators and a good friend
    of mine Richard Tulisano (inaudible).
    I thought he was going to kill me.  Shortly after
    that (inaudible).  I had already hired a friend of
    mine an actuarial to see what these changes that
    were made would do.  And also (inaudible). These
    changes would save maybe $5 million (inaudible).  I
    was just waiting for him to ignore that and he said
    that these changes saved $50 million (inaudible) In
    fact a couple of weeks ago (inaudible) the
    Assistant States Attorney, doing a tremendous job,
    unfortunately she's (inaudible).
    (nearly entire testimony is inaudible)  Last year
    advertising for (inaudible) eight hours a day five
    days a week (inaudible).  That's about all I have
    to say, thank you gentlemen.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you Phil.  Questions?  If not,
    thanks.  Diane Lauricella.
DIANE LAURICELLA:  For the record my last name can be
    pronounced either Lauricella or Lauracella with an
    L, that was a good try.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you.
SEN. COLAPIETRO:  Well I (inaudible) the Italian
    (inaudible).
REP. LAWLOR:  I'm from East Haven so.
DIANE LAURICELLA:  Okay, I'm sorry I have a hand
    written statement, very brief.  My computer went
    out during the storm but I wanted to give something
    for you and your colleagues to read.  I'm going to
    be very brief here, but I offer because of my
    experiences about to tell you, offer my assistance
    when you are thinking of crafting a new bill.
    Two things, basically I was a state employee for
    almost seven years in the Department of
    Environmental Protection.  At that time for the six
    years I was there, I convinced after much trials
    and tribulation, I got enough of the staff together
    to start a health and safety committee in one of
    the two divisions of that department.  I know part
    of the bills that are being proposed have to do
    with mandatory health and safety committees.
    I'm currently an environmental consultant, even in
    the consulting firms that I have worked I have been
    the health and safety officer.  It makes good sense
    that prevention through mandatory education which
    happens to be a good idea through these health and
    safety committees is a good way to cut the costs.
    It also helps the employer understand where they
    may or may not be handling situations properly in
    my business where there's drilling into hazardous
    chemicals.
    You have to get ready and prepare and be ready
    through training on how to recognize potential
    hazard.  It avoids injury and explosions and that
    of course will cut the costs.  It all makes to make
    such common sense yet, I fought for six years to
    have this committee and it still is thriving and
    now that department has a full time person.  It was
    just after I left there, I go back and I'm very
    happy about that.  But in other divisions of that
    department, air compliance, they still don't have a
    health and safety committee.
    State police investigators that work on health and
    safety environmental issues they do not have a
    health and safety committee.  There are many other
    departments in the state that I know need health
    and safety committees.  Likewise in the private
    sector.  A lot of consultants don't have these
    types of things and they're just waiting and
    unfortunately a tank cleaning company in the New
    Haven area had an explosion.  Finally they
    probably, if they're still in business, might
    happen to have a health and safety committee.
    Secondly, unfortunately after I left the state
    service, I had an injury myself.  I was injured on
    the job and everyone said, and I know that God was
    smiling on me, I was very lucky.  After falling
    down a flight of stair, I just happened to have
    muscle and nerve damage and some bone damage.  No
    breaks.  I didn't snap my neck but sometimes I'll
    tell you with the kind of bureaucracy that I've
    been introduced to with the insurance company that
    my employer used, I think it's worse some times.
    I'm still not sure as to how, as to whether I'll be
    able to be standing in five years because of the
    type of injury I have.  As far as cost containment,
    I will say that the handle, the deficiencies in the
    handling of the claims, there is a very good New
    York Times article on this, whether insurance
    companies by over scrutinizing some claims waste a
    lot more money than they save.  One problem that I
    have noted in my statement is that my particular
    injury is kind of exotic according to the current
    charts.
    If I had broken my leg, or chopped or my finger had
    been missing it would be easy enough to give me my
    partial permanent disability.  But because I happen
    to have something that isn't really that new, it's
    just a little ahead of the time as far as the very
    outdated workers comp charts.  I have been harassed
    by the insurance companies, I have been jerked
    around, for lack of a better phrase.  And it is all
    causing me not to get to the point to where I am
    fully employable.  That I am fully able to feel
    that I can one day take control of these injuries
    and go on and work.
    Which I always thought was the whole point of
    workers comp.  To try to get that employee to
    the point where they can work to the best of their
    ability.  So I think, in closing, I just wanted to
    say that I feel that a lot of the problems
    happening here is with employers not mandating and
    being mandated to have health and safety committees
    and insurance companies pretending that they're
    scrutinizing for cost containment when actually
    all their doing is totalling up their monies,
    charging the employers that pay them, and giving
    the injured workers a hard time.  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you Diane.  Any questions?  If not,
    thank you very much.  Diane is the last person who
    was.
    :  I did't get a chance to sign up.
REP. LAWLOR:  Sure.
ANDY ESPOSITO:  I'll be very brief.
REP. LAWLOR:  Sure, just come to the microphone and
    identify yourself.
ANDY ESPOSITO:  I'll be very brief.  Andy Esposito,
    Local 424, I'm an (inaudible) worker.  (inaudible)
    I hope he's not laid up, I came here to the
    presentations here, I was disappointed that
    everybody left.  Being a speaker up in Hartford,
    it's pretty difficult to get a speaking program for
    three minutes, to the public.  And we get a chance
    here tonight, and what does he do, he gets up and
    leaves.
    So we're watching everybody here, I know you guys
    are doing a great job and I don't want to belabor
    the point.  I want you to let you know (inaudible)
    Mr. Buonocore.  Thank you very much.  Anybody got
    any questions?
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you Andy.
    :  (inaudible)
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you.
DAVE SALDIBAR:  Mr. Chairman, my name is Dave Saldibar
    I'm secretary-treasurer of the Connecticut State
    Council of Carpenters.  I'm also a lobbyist for the
    carpenters in the state of Connecticut.  I want to
    commend the Committee for the excellent job they
    have performed here tonight under difficult times.
    But as you heard the horror stories from all of
    these people, construction workers, office workers,
    factory workers, this is only a small segment of
    what's out there in the state of Connecticut and
    the issues that we have to face.
    We're relying on you people to go out there and do
    the best you possibly can for us and get the
    message to the other people out there.  I think
    it's important to note that every trades person
    here belonging to a union are the people that built
    Connecticut.  We're the ones, and our forefathers,
    have built this state of Connecticut.  And I think
    that somewhere along the line we owe just a little
    bit to these people, especially the ones that need
    us now.  So again I would like to thank the entire
    Committee, for the job they have done this evening.
    And I really, I sat here in amazement tonight
    myself, listening to some of these stories.
    I'll see you guys on Thursday.  Thank you.
REP. LAWLOR:  Thank you Dave.  And with that, having
    exhausted the signup list I'll call this public
    hearing to a close.  Unless there's anyone else
    that would like to say something before we close
    the public hearing.  If not, thank you very much,
    once again, we have one Thursday.