Connect with us

Connecticut

Connecticut families need earned wage access

Published

on

Connecticut families need earned wage access


In January 2024, Connecticut made legislative changes that effectively shut down the ability of many workers to obtain instant transfers of their own earned wages between pay periods. However, my new study with colleagues finds that the Connecticut General Assembly should reverse this and pass SB 1396 this session. Doing so would give Connecticut workers faster access to their earned wages and help them make ends meet.

Prior to 2024, Connecticut residents were able to instantly access their earned wages through an electronic transfer via Earned Wage Access (EWA).  EWA is a service that allows workers to access the income they have already earned but not yet received. To be clear, this is not a loan or a salary advance but providing someone the portion of a paycheck they have already earned, prior to payday.

In order to get instant access, workers had to pay a $3.49 instant transfer fee (much like Venmo).  On January 1, 2024, Connecticut eliminated the instant transfer fee option, which, by removing the mechanism that allowed EWA service providers to cover their costs, effectively eliminated EWA in Connecticut.

As a researcher and Associate Professor of Public Policy at the University of Connecticut, much of my work —centered around using economic data to understand society’s problems— is ultimately about understanding how policy changes impact families. Colleagues and I wanted to know how this seemingly small, innocuous even, policy might affect people’s lives (the study was commissioned by DailyPay, an EWA provider, but conducted independently of them). To determine the effect of the instant transfer elimination, we surveyed 508 Connecticut-based EWA users and asked them a series of questions about their lives and finances, and if, and to what extent, they noticed any impact of the January 2024 EWA changes.

Advertisement
Kerri Raissian PhD

Of our 508 respondents, 65% were female, the majority were non-white, and 77% reported living with children in their homes. Although most of our sample indicated that they had been employed during the last seven days before our survey, 61% also reported an annual household income of less than $75,000. Most of our survey respondents reported not having access to savings, a budgeting plan, or the ability to cover unexpected expenses. In other words, these EWA users are Connecticut workers who live paycheck to paycheck.

Importantly, when EWA users access their earned wages, it was for urgent, time sensitive needs: the main reasons were food and groceries (91%), transportation including gas (66%), rent or mortgage (55%), and utility bills (60%) (see Figure 1 below, modified from the report). 

It seems appropriate that a user would need their wages immediately rather than in a few days’ time.  Given this, the instant transfer is an integral part to allowing EWA to provide financial relief to their family. 

In addition to asking users how they relied on EWA, we asked them about their financial circumstances in the past 12 months. Many of them had fallen behind on bills (65%), overdrew their bank accounts (28%), paid bills late (25%), paid credit cards late (25%), among other negative financial outcomes (see Figure 2 below, replicated from the report).

I see several financial hardships pressing on Connecticut’s families: higher cost of living, higher cost of credit, economic uncertainty, to name a few.  Those in our survey reported accessing their wages to purchase food and groceries, cover transportation costs, and pay for rent, mortgages, or utilities. Soon, the school year will end, making it harder for families to access social services and school meals to keep their children properly cared for and nourished. Without the services provided throughout the school year, reinstating the EWA instant transfer option could be especially welcome to Connecticut’s families this summer.

To be sure, the legislature’s 2024 decision to cut EWA in Connecticut was almost certainly designed to protect workers from predatory practices and tools that could take advantage of their financial limitations and needs. Even if it was well-meaning, however, it has had unintended consequences for employees and their families. Since the EWA change, too many Connecticut users say they have fallen behind on bills, overdrafted accounts, paid bills late, taken out a money order, or taken out a payday loan. Others have even had to go without meeting basic needs.

There are no perfect options for Connecticut’s residents whose salaries are too low and who face a cost of living that is too high. But by removing EWA, the state has seemingly moved them closer to things we’d all like to avoid: going into debt, relying upon the kindness of friends and family, or going without something they need for themselves and their children. Moreover, the $3.49 transfer fee is roughly equivalent to an ATM fee; it is likely less expensive and more transparent than cumulative credit card debt, overdraft fees, or loan interest; and it provides dignity to Connecticut’s families.

Advertisement

Finally, the users in our study said they thought the EWA tool was useful and fair. Our study shows that eliminating it is no solution for working families.

That is why the Connecticut legislature’s Banking Committee is seeking to revive EWA this year. I commend them for unanimously voting it out of the Banking Committee. I urge the Connecticut General Assembly to pass SB 1396 and allow Earned Wage Access to meet Connecticut workers’ real-world needs.

Kerri M. Raissian an Associate Professor of Public Policy at the University of Connecticut and the Co-Leader of the Connecticut Scholars Strategy Network.

This Scholar Reflection is based on a study that was paid for and commissioned by Daily Pay, an Earned Wage Access provider. The survey and research were conducted independently. All conclusions and errors are those of the author.

 

Advertisement

 

 



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connecticut

Man shot, critically injured by police in Hartford; mayor says there will be a ‘full review’

Published

on

Man shot, critically injured by police in Hartford; mayor says there will be a ‘full review’




Man shot, critically injured by police in Hartford; mayor says there will be a ‘full review’ – NBC Connecticut



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Connecticut

Connecticut moves to crack down on bottle redemption fraud

Published

on

Connecticut moves to crack down on bottle redemption fraud


It’s a scheme made famous by a nearly 30-year-old episode of the sitcom Seinfeld.

Hoping to earn a quick buck, two characters load a mail truck full of soda bottles and beer cans purchased with a redeemable 5-cent deposit in New York, before traveling to Michigan, where they can be recycled for 10 cents apiece. With few thousand cans, they calculate, the trip will earn a decent profit. In the end, the plan fell apart.

But after Connecticut raised the value of its own bottle deposits to 10 cents in 2024, officials say, they were caught off guard by a flood of such fraudulent returns coming in from out of state. Redemption rates have reached 97%, and some beverage distributors have reported millions of dollars in losses as a result of having to pay out for excess returns of their products.

On Thursday, state lawmakers passed an emergency bill to crack down on illegal returns by increasing fines, requiring redemption centers to keep track of bulk drop-offs and allowing local police to go after out-of-state violators.

Advertisement

“I’m heartbroken,” said House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, who supported the effort to increase deposits to 10 cents and expand the number of items eligible for redemption. “I spent a lot of political capital to get the bottle bill passed in 2021, and never in a million years did I think that New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island residents would return so many bottles.”

The legislation, Senate Bill 299, would increase fines for violating the bottle bill law from $50 to $500 on a first offense. For third and subsequent offenses, the penalty would increase from $250 to $2,000 and misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison.

In addition, it requires redemption centers to be licensed by the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (previously, those businesses were only required to register with DEEP). As a condition of their license, redemption centers must keep records of anyone seeking to redeem more than 1,000 bottles and cans in a single day.

Anyone not affiliated with a qualified nonprofit would be prohibited from redeeming more than 4,000 bottles a day, down from the previous limit of 5,000.

The bill also seeks to pressure some larger redemption centers into adopting automated scanning technologies, such as reverse vending machines, by temporarily lowering the handling fee that is paid on each beverage container processed by those centers.

Advertisement

The bill easily passed the Senate on Wednesday and the House on Thursday on its way to Gov. Ned Lamont.

While the bill drew bipartisan support, Republicans described it as a temporary fix to a growing problem.

House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, called the switch to 10-cent deposits an “unmitigated disaster” and said he believed out-of-state redemption centers were offloading much of their inventory within Connecticut.

“The sheer quantity that is being redeemed in the state of Connecticut, this isn’t two people putting cans into a post office truck,” Candelora said. “This is far more organized than that.”

The impact of those excess returns is felt mostly by the state’s wholesale beverage distributors, who initiate the redemption process by collecting an additional 10 cents on every eligible bottle and can they sell to supermarkets, liquor stores and other retailers within Connecticut. The distributors are required to pay that money back — plus a handling fee — once the containers are returned to the store or a redemption center.

Advertisement

According to the state’s Department of Revenue Services, nearly 12% of wholesalers reported having to pay out more redemptions than they collected in deposits in 2025. Those losses totaled $11.3 million.

Peter Gallo, the vice president of Star Distributors in West Haven, said his company’s losses alone have totaled more than $2 million since the increase on deposits went into effect two years ago. As time goes on, he said, the deficit has only grown.

“We’re hoping we can get something fixed here, because it’s a tough pill to be holding on to debt that we should get paid for,” Gallo said.

Still, officials say they have no way of tracking precisely how many of the roughly 2 billion containers that were redeemed in the state last year were illegally brought in from other states. That’s because most products lack any kind of identifiable marking indicating where they were sold.

“There’s no way to tell right now. That’s one of the core issues here,” said state Rep. John-Michael Parker, D-Madison, who co-chairs the legislature’s Environment Committee.

Advertisement

Parker said the issue could be solved if product labels were printed with a specific barcode or other feature that would be unique to Connecticut. Such a solution, for now, has faced technological challenges and pushback from the beverage industry, he said.

Not everyone involved in the handling, sorting and redemption of bottles is happy about the upcoming changes — or the process by which they were approved.

Francis Bartolomeo, the owner of a Fran’s Cans and Bart’s Bottles in Watertown, said he was only made aware of the legislation on Monday from a fellow redemption center owner. Since then, he said, he’s been contacting his legislators to oppose the bill and was frustrated by the lack of a public hearing.

“I know other people are as flabbergasted as I am because they don’t know where it comes out of,” Bartolomeo said “It’s a one sided affair, really.”

Bartolomeo said one of his biggest concerns with the bill is the $2,500 annual licensing fee that it would place on redemption centers. While he agreed that out-of-state redemptions are a problem, he said it should be up to the state to improve enforcement.

Advertisement

“We’re cleaning up the mess, and we’re going to end up being penalized,” Bartolomeo said. “Get rid of it and go back to 5 cents if it’s that big of a hindrance, but don’t penalize the redemption centers for what you imposed.”

Lynn Little of New Milford Redemption Center supports the increased penalties but believes the solution ultimately lies with better labeling by the distributors. She is also frustrated by the volume caps after the state initially gave grants to residents looking to open their own bottle redemption businesses.

“They’re taking a volume business, because any business where you make 3 cents per unit (the average handling fee) is a volume business, and limiting the volume we can take in, you’re crushing small businesses,” Little said.

Ritter said that he opposed a move back to the 5-cent deposit, which he noted was increased to encourage recycling. However, he said the current situation has become politically untenable and puts the state at risk of a lawsuit from distributors.

“We’re getting to a point where we’re going to lose the bottle bill,” Ritter said. “If we got sued in court, I think we’d lose.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Connecticut

Stanley Black & Decker To Shutter New Britain Manufacturing Facility

Published

on

Stanley Black & Decker To Shutter New Britain Manufacturing Facility


NEW BRITAIN, CT — Stanley Black & Decker on Thursday said it has decided to close its manufacturing facility in New Britain.

Debora Raymond, vice president of external communications for the manufacturer, said the decision is a result of a “structural decline in demand for single-sided tape measures.”

The New Britain facility predominantly makes these products, according to Raymond.

“These products are quickly becoming obsolete in the markets we serve,” Raymond said, via an emailed statement Thursday.

Advertisement

The decision is expected to impact approximately 300 employees, according to Raymond.

“We are focused on supporting impacted employees through this transition, including providing options for employment at other facilities, severance, and job placement support services for both salaried and hourly employees,” Raymond said.

As of Thursday at 4:30 p.m., no Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act notice had been filed with the state Department of Labor.

The company’s corporate headquarters remains at 1000 Stanley Dr., New Britain.

Gov. Ned Lamont released the following statement on the decision:

Advertisement

“Although Stanley has made the decision to discontinue operations for manufacturing outdated products, a change in workforce opportunities is difficult for employees, their families, and any community.,” Lamont said. “However, I am hopeful that these skilled workers will be repurposed with the help of Stanley Black & Decker, a company that will still proudly be headquartered here in Connecticut. My administration is working closely with local and state leaders to support affected workers and to reimagine the factory site so it can continue to create opportunity and strengthen New Britain’s economic future.”

New Britain Mayor Bobby Sanchez said he is “deeply disappointed” the company will be closing its Myrtle Street operations.

“For generations, Stanley Works has been part of the fabric of our city, providing good-paying jobs, supporting families, and helping build New Britain’s proud reputation as the ‘Hardware City,’” Sanchez said.

According to the mayor, his office’s immediate focus is on helping affected workers and their families. The mayor has been in contact with Lamont’s office, and they will be working closely to make sure employees have access to job placement services, retraining opportunities and support, Sanchez said.

“We will continue aggressively pursuing economic development opportunities and attracting businesses that are looking for a true community partner, a city ready to collaborate, innovate and grow alongside them,” Sanchez said. “New Britain has reinvented itself before, and we will do so again.”

Advertisement

Stanley Black & Decker, founded in 1843, operates manufacturing facilities worldwide, according to its website. It reports having 43,500 employees globally, and makes an array of products, such as power tools and equipment, hand tools, and fasteners.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending