• Key insight: The failed effort to unionize a Wells Fargo branch in Wallingford, Connecticut, comes one month after six workers at the branch listed their grievances in a letter to CEO Charlie Scharf.
• Supporting data: Union organizers have notched wins in elections at 28 Wells Fargo branches nationwide. Following the Connecticut vote, the bank has beaten back unionization pushes at three branches.
• Forward look: Bargaining talks are under way at 21 Wells Fargo branches, with negotiations at a 22nd branch scheduled to begin next month.

Wells Fargo employees at a branch in Connecticut have voted against forming a union — a win for the megabank amid a slew of branch-level elections that have gone in favor of union organizers.

Processing Content

In December, six workers at Wells Fargo’s North Colony branch in Wallingford, Connecticut, sent a letter to CEO Charlie Scharf, informing him of the timing of the election, and expressing concern over what they characterized as understaffing and a lack of compensation.

But when the vote was held on Jan. 7, the tally was 6-2 against unionization, according to the National Labor Relations Board.

“We’re pleased with the outcome of the election,” a Wells spokesperson said in an email. “We believe that the decision by employees at our North Colony branch reflects their trust in our continued commitment to fostering a workplace where employees feel supported and valued.”

Union organizers provided a statement from Max Saldanha, an associate personal banker at Wells Fargo who worked to organize the North Colony branch.

“While the results are disappointing, it is without a doubt that Wells Fargo workers are continuing to organize for a better workplace at one of the nation’s largest banks,” Saldanha said in the written statement. “Alongside nearly 30 organized branches across the country representing over 160 workers, we will continue to fight for better pay, better benefits, and a culture of dignity and respect.”

The Connecticut election is the third instance of Wells Fargo branch workers voting against unionization. The two previous “no” votes happened at branches in Belleview, Florida, and Atwater, California. Union organizers subsequently filed an unfair labor practices charge in connection with the Atwater election.

Since late 2023, union organizers have notched victories in elections at 28 Wells Fargo branches nationwide, though a unionized branch in New Jersey was subsequently closed. The company has more than 4,000 branches altogether.

One nonbanch unit at the bank has also voted to unionize.

So far, none of the bargaining units have reached a contract with Wells Fargo, and the process has been marked by acrimony.

Union officials have filed more than 35 unfair labor practice charges against the bank. The allegations of bad behavior, which Wells has denied, range from the surreptitious use of virtual meeting software to laying off employees who were involved in union organizing.

Wells has said that it respects the right of its employees to unionize, but believes they are best served by working directly with the company’s leadership.

Contract negotiations are now under way at 21 Wells branches, and the bank says talks at an additional location are scheduled to start next month. Wells said that its representatives have spent more than 90 days at the bargaining table to reach acceptable terms for its employees.

Both sides of the talks have focused much of their efforts on a branch in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which in December 2023 became the first Wells branch to vote in favor of a union. Union organizers have designated the Albuquerque bargaining unit as their national lead.

The 90 days that the bank has spent at the bargaining table are spread across more than 20 branches, noted Nick Weiner, an organizer at the union-backed Committee for Better Banks, which is leading the unionization push at Wells Fargo.

“We regret that Wells Fargo continues to insist that we bargain each branch separately,” Weiner told American Banker, adding that the bank’s decentralized approach is dragging out the process.

“We are making progress, and our bargaining teams are energized to get to a first contract. And we think we can get there, but Wells Fargo isn’t making it easy, and that’s why we think bargaining a national contract makes the most sense,” Weiner said. “And that’s what the workers want.”

In response to the argument that Wells Fargo should bargain a national contract, Wells spokesperson Tim Wetzel noted that each of the more than two dozen unionized Wells branches was organized separately.

“So we’re just following NLRB process,” Wetzel said.

The Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention has lowered the state limit on forever chemicals, or PFAS, in drinking water to align with rigorous federal standards established by the Biden administration.

The change reduces the maximum amount of the two most harmful forever chemicals to four parts per trillion (ppt) — roughly four drops in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools — and no more than 10 ppt, for three others combined.

The new rule, adopted in December, will be rolled out in phases, from monitoring by 2027 to initial enforcement in 2028. When in full effect, Maine’s 1,900 public drinking water systems could face fines of up to $2,000 per day for exceeding the maximum contaminant limits.

“The (Department of Health and Human Services) has determined that these new requirements are necessary to protect public health,” it wrote in a rule summary. “The department will work with stakeholders to provide technical assistance and guidance where needed.”

Maine’s old limit was 20 ppt for the combined sum of six forever chemicals. The two most harmful, PFOA and PFOS, are now capped at four ppt each, which is a sharp decrease because they account for the bulk of most forever chemical readings in Maine.

Systems have until April 2029 to comply, which could require treating water, drilling new wells or hooking up to a clean water supply. Until then, Maine will use its 20 ppt limit to “cover the gap,” said DHHS spokeswoman Lindsay Hammes.

Forever chemicals have been used since the 1940s in consumer products and industry, including in nonstick pans, food packaging and firefighting foam. Even trace amounts are deemed harmful, linked to a host of health problems that range from immune deficiency to certain cancers.

State public health officials estimate it could cost $50 million to bring Maine’s public drinking water systems into full compliance with the new standard. The state plans to tap the federal safe drinking water revolving loan fund to cover those costs.

Maintaining each system could cost between $1,000 to $100,000 a year, public health officials predict.

An analysis of state data from 2023 by Defend Our Health, a Portland environmental nonprofit, determined that one in 10 Mainers — roughly 134,035 people — drinks from a public water supply that exceeds the limit Maine just adopted, including in Augusta, Sanford and Waterville.

The group’s data showed that more than 14,000 students and staff at 60 Maine schools, day cares, and colleges are drinking water that was below Maine’s old limit but are above its new limit, like Lake Region High School in Naples or Marshwood Middle School in Eliot.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted its protective PFAS limits in April 2024. It said the limit would prevent thousands of premature deaths, serious adult illnesses, and immune and developmental impacts to children.

Private well owners remain responsible for ensuring their water is safe to drink. The quality and safety of private domestic wells are not regulated by the federal government, nor by most state laws. About half of Maine’s residents gets their drinking water from a private well.

Two of the four forever chemicals that had been regulated under the old state rule, PFDA and PFHpA, will not be regulated under the new rule. They are used in food packaging and stain-resistant coatings on rugs and furniture.

Advocates wanted these to count toward the new state limit, but officials say it’s not necessary; they only occur when there is too much PFOA or PFOS anyway. The state will still require the systems to monitor for these chemicals even though they won’t count toward the cap.

The new rule will also require Maine water systems to regulate two new forever chemicals: GenX and PFBS. These chemicals were created to replace PFOA and PFOS but have been found to pose similar health concerns.

Previously, the EPA had advised but not required a drinking water limit of 70 ppt. Many of Maine’s other PFAS advisory levels for milk, eggs, beef, crops, hay, fish or game are based on this old advisory.

State officials said they will use the new EPA standard, and the science supporting it, to inform Maine’s PFAS standards in other substances, but said it would happen over time, and that no one should expect Maine’s milk, beef and fish consumption advisories to change soon.

Maine has identified more than 600 residential wells near former sludge fields, military bases and industrial sites that test above Maine’s old PFAS limit, and that amount is likely to double under the new standard.

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection could not be reached for an interview about how the new limit will be used when deciding who among those living on sludge-impacted land will have their water remediation costs covered by the state.

A local woman who was denied a license to carry firearms because of her husband’s “violent and aggressive behavior” has won her appeal in state court.

Barbara Guinane applied to the Manchester-by-the-Sea police chief for an LTC more than three years ago.

The police chief ended up ruling that Guinane was unsuitable and denied the LTC application due to her husband. The chief noted her husband’s violent disputes with neighbors, resulting in police responses to the couple’s home, criminal charges, restraining orders against him, and his LTC being suspended.

Ultimately, the chief argued that issuing an LTC to Guinane would allow her husband to have access to weapons.

After Guinane lost her appeal multiple times in court, she brought her case to Massachusetts Appeals Court.

“We agree with Guinane that her husband’s conduct did not, in these circumstances, furnish adequate statutory grounds for the chief to find her unsuitable,” the Appeals Court ruled. “Therefore, without reaching any Second Amendment issue, we reverse.”

The Appeals Court ordered the police chief to grant Guinane’s LTC application.

She had applied for her LTC in October of 2022. Earlier that year, a neighbor had called 911 to report that Guinane’s husband “came to (the neighbor’s) property yelling about trash cans and was carrying a baseball bat and then smashed a light pole in a fit of rage.”

When police responded, they found the Guinanes sitting on their front porch, where the husband told them, “I know I smashed a light.” He explained that he believed someone had broken into his shed, and he had lost his temper.

The husband was criminally charged with vandalizing property, and the neighbors obtained a harassment prevention order against him. The chief also suspended the husband’s LTC.

Then, the husband and a second neighbor had a verbal altercation, leading to the husband being charged with threatening to commit a crime, and with assault with intent to intimidate based on the victim’s race, religion, color and/or disability. The second neighbor also obtained a restraining order against him.

When Guinane applied for her own LTC, the chief found her unsuitable because of his concern that her husband would have access to the weapons. The chief acknowledged that Guinane herself had no criminal record.

The chief agreed that if Guinane were not married to her husband, “she would be a suitable person.” The chief nevertheless ruled that “it may be a threat to public safety” to issue an LTC to Guinane.