Legislation inspired by labor concerns over Amazon’s use of quotas and biometric surveillance to manage its warehouse workers was approved Wednesday on a largely party-line vote in the state House of Representatives.

A compromise combining elements of bills proposed by Gov. Ned Lamont and the legislature’s Labor and Public Employees Committee would require greater transparency from employers about quotas and digital monitoring.

If House Bill 6907 passes the Senate as expected, Connecticut would follow California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Washington with laws intended to provide greater protections for workers in warehouses and fulfillment centers.

The measure passed on a 97-46 vote over the unanimous opposition of the Republican minority and two Democrats, Rep. Raghib Allie-Brennan of Bethel and Rep. Jill Barry of Glastonbury.

Rep. Manny Sanchez, D-New Britain, co-chair of the labor committee, said the bill’s intent was to require transparency about quotas and ensure they “do not interfere with employees’ legally mandated meal and bathroom breaks.”

Republicans assailed the legislation as a government overreach and an effort by unions to achieve in legislation would they could in organizing and collective bargaining.

”Why does the legislature, why does the executive branch, why does the governor seem to be punitive towards business when we have companies who we are trying to attract to come here?” said Rep. Steve Weir, R-Hebron.

Lamont, a former business owner who has made economic growth a priority, has broken with labor on some issues, most notably a bill that would provide jobless benefits to strikers. But he proposed his own version of a warehouse bill after taking no position on one proposed two years ago.

The National Employment Law Project reported last year that the rate of warehouse worker injury is twice the average of other private industries, which NELP blamed in part on the tactics that some companies, notably Amazon, employ to speed the pace of workers in a business that promises prompt deliveries.

Amazon did not submit any testimony on the bill this year or the version proposed in 2023, but Weir defended the company.

“Why are we trying to send the message that we don’t appreciate the jobs and the opportunity and the ingenuity and the efficiency that they bring to make sure that all those packages show up on our doorstep when we order them?” said Weir, the ranking Republican on labor. “So this is a terrible message to send. Make no mistake, this is all about the messaging.”

Rep. Dave Rutigliano, R-Trumbull, said he was confident Amazon could comply, but he worried about other companies and the general message sent to business.

“We have this penchant to sort of go after these big companies, the boogeyman, like Amazon,” Rutigliano said. “Well, I gotta tell you, I’m not here to defend Amazon. I guarantee you, Amazon doesn’t have a big problem with this bill, because they’re already meeting every aspect of this bill.”

The bill applies to companies that employee at least 100 workers in one warehouse or an aggregate of 1,000 in the state.

Other Republicans said the bill interfered with the labor-management relationship. The bill is an element of a campaign to lobby blue-state legislatures to set standards in law for a retail distribution giant that has proved difficult to organize and bring to collective bargaining.

While the Connecticut AFL-CIO supports the bill, the campaign for passage in Connecticut has been led by the Teamsters.

Their international arm is trying to organize Amazon workers, and two locals in Connecticut are fearful that if Amazon’s standards are allowed to persist, other warehouse workers could feel similar pressures.

Unions have had at least one failure on the issue in a blue state.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a potential Democratic candidate for president in 2028, vetoed a similar warehouse bill in March. His message focused on process, less than the desirability of states imposing standards.

“While I share the goal of protecting warehouse workers from dangerous and unfair working conditions, this bill was passed hastily at the end of the Lame Duck session without engagement with relevant state agencies or my office and presents both legal and operational issues that undermine its effect,” Pritzker wrote.