From the meeting of the Labor Committee - January 9, 2007

 
Sen. Prague:  

Every time I hear about the business community pushing legislation through this legislature, all I can think of is how they pushed deregulation of the electric industry.   You know, it was going to save jobs.  It was going to save the economy of Connecticut.  I voted against that bill and I’ll tell you that my gut told me it was going to be a disaster, because when you start deregulating systems that are so critical it just doesn’t work out.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
From the debate on a bill to allow children of immigrants who attend Connecticut high schools for four years and then graduate to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities - transcript of the Connecticut Senate - June 1, 2007:

SEN. PRAGUE:

. . . Mr. President, I rise to support this bill. You know, all of us around this Circle know that education is the key to better life, a better future, and a better opportunity to contribute to society as a whole.

I remember the young woman in Norwich when this issue first came to my attention several years ago, which was the foundation of the Dream Act.

This young woman was brought to this country by her mother and father when she was just a baby. She had no clue that her mother and father and she were illegal immigrants.

She grew up in Norwich. She went to the schools in Norwich. She graduated with top honors from NFA, and wanted to go to Eastern Connecticut State University. She had worked during high school to save money because her parents were making enough, you know, to keep their heads above water, but didn't have enough to pay for her education.

She had worked, she had saved money, and she had planned to go to Eastern. And when she found out that she was not an American citizen, even though she had lived in this country, in this state from, well for all of her life except the first few months when she was in another country with her parents, she was devastated.

She didn't have the money to pay the out-of-state tuition. And consequently, she couldn't go to school. She had to delay going for another couple of years.

I think that for us to deny young people who have spent many years of their lives in this state the opportunity to get an education is really, in my opinion, not the right thing to do.

I hope that Members of this Circle realize what kind of damage we'll be doing to these young people. It's my hope also that the Dream Act will become law. To give young people an opportunity to better themselves is also a good thing for us. As members of this society, we benefit from those who can contribute and make life better.

So, Mr. President, I'm hoping that Members of this Circle will seriously consider this issue. It's going to affect the lives of an awful lot of young people.

They're not asking for scholarships. They're not asking for financial aid. They're just asking to be able to pay their way as in-state students and pay the in-state tuition. Thank you.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

From the debate about a bill that would require that some employers give sick days to their workers - transcript of the Connecticut Senate, May 29, 2007:

. . .

Employees who work 40 hours a week will earn one hour of paid sick time.

This bill is both for part-time employees and for full-time employees. An employee can accumulate 52 hours of sick time, which is 6-1/2 days a year.

As the situation currently stands, employees who cannot afford to stay home because they are sick, because they need that day's pay to pay their mortgage or feed their kids, have to go to work sick.

When they go to work sick, they infect other employees. If they're working in a restaurant, it certainly is not the place to have somebody who is sick sneezing on your food or coughing on your food.

Because these people do not have any kind of paid sick time, they have to go to work because they need that day's pay.

The amendment also takes up to 120 days before you can use whatever sick time you have accumulated. The underlying bill has 90 days, but because we wanted to give the municipalities the opportunities to have seasonal workers, the 120 days is now in place. So the seasonal workers would be eliminated, virtually, because they wouldn't be able to start taking their sick time until after the 120 days.

What the bill also does is document how the employee has to take the sick time. If he knows beforehand that he is going to the doctor or has some kind of medical appointment, he has to notify the employer.

If he can't notify the employer, and he's sick, and he's out for three days or more, he has to bring in documentation that he's sick.

This bill provides protection for employers and employees. It is a very important benefit for people who do not have any sick time. As the New York Times says in its article, it is the humane and decent thing to do.

Mr. President, I hope that every member of the Circle will remember that if one of us is sick, we can stay home and continue to get our pay, regardless of how many days we are home.

For people out there in the world of work, this is a very, very important, necessary benefit. All of us, as human beings, at some point in time, become ill, and we need to provide these employees with the chance to stay home and get better.

Mr. President, I hope that every member of the Circle will support this very important piece of legislation. Thank you.