Role In Hartford Job Losses Shows Connecticut Needs A Clear Policy To
Foster And Preserve Employment
By Eddie A. Perez | Mayor of Hartford
July 17 2005
For the first time in many years, Connecticut's unemployment rate is higher
than the national average. Economists at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
have awarded the state the dubious distinction of leading the nation in
employment stagnation.
Though there are many economic forces beyond the influence of state
government, Connecticut is compounding its unemployment problems by pursuing
a flawed economic policy. This policy has recently sanctioned the
elimination of 580 jobs at a healthy insurance company and the use of
millions of your tax dollars to move 2,000 insurance jobs from one town to
another.
This not only defies common sense, it requires a fundamental reassessment in
thinking if we are to beat the economic development teams from other states
that work every day to steal Connecticut's high-paying jobs.
In the past few weeks, Hartford has experienced two dramatic examples of the
state's schizophrenic approach to employment:
On June 29, state Economic Development Commissioner James Abromaitis, with
the governor's support, tried to slip a last-minute provision past the state
legislature providing millions of tax dollars to move ING and its 2,000
insurance jobs from Hartford to a neighboring town. ING had already
identified a suitable site in Hartford to build a new facility and keep
valuable jobs in the city. But the state refused to partner with the city to
resolve ING's need for parking.
The Department of Economic and Community Development negotiates deals in
secret with the corporations it considers "clients." This policy puts towns
in the dark about incentives being offered and pits one community against
another.
On June 30, Insurance Commissioner Susan Cogswell approved the elimination
of 580 Hartford-based insurance jobs as part of the $11.5 billion sale of
Travelers Life & Annuity to MetLife - even though a study commissioned by
the city of Hartford found that these job cuts will cost the state $1.7
billion in economic damage over 10 years. In this unusual transaction, the
commissioner agreed to significant job elimination before a public hearing
could be held on the matter, and required a commitment of only one year on
the remaining jobs. This new standard for merger approval guarantees future
mega-deals will strip Connecticut of its highly skilled insurance workforce.
The ING and MetLife examples show that this administration is ill-prepared
to tackle the complex task of negotiating with sophisticated financial
services companies to not only attract but also maintain jobs in our state.
Who can blame MetLife or ING for simply seeking the best deal? However,
state government must be willing to articulate a clear economic vision for
job growth and judiciously use our regulatory power and incentives to
reverse this job drain. In the insurance and financial services sector,
there are a number of steps that can be taken immediately to attract and
maintain Connecticut jobs:
Appoint an advocate to coordinate the state's effort to attract and retain
insurance jobs. This office, promised by the governor more than two months
ago, should leverage government authority with industry know-how to
aggressively pursue opportunities for our state.
Cut the red tape on approving new insurance products. Innovation in the
insurance industry drives profit and creates jobs. Popular products that
insurers sell in other states can take months or years to be approved in
Connecticut.
Put tax incentives in line with state development goals. Incentives should
create jobs and grow businesses, not just pad corporate bottom lines.
Consider job losses and gains in merger approvals. The economic impact of
job losses should be part of any insurance merger proceeding.
With a significant change in the economic policy for Connecticut, we can
recapture our place as an employment leader.