This editorial appeared June 23 in The Providence Journal.

Once again, Rhode Island has emerged as an outlier state that is unfriendly to business. And the Raimondo administration put its seal of approval on it.

It has to do with the recent Verizon strike. Unable to reach agreement on a new contract, more than 30,000 Verizon workers across 10 states chose to walk off the job, and stay off the job, because they wanted to publicize their struggle and put themselves in a better position to bargain eventually obtaining a contract agreement.

Of the 10 states where Verizon workers chose to strike, just one — you guessed it, Rhode Island — decided those workers should receive unemployment benefits.

Scott Jensen, director of the state’s Department of Labor and Training, who answers to Gov. Gina Raimondo, said the employees are eligible because the conflict between the workers and their employer, rather than being a strike, was a lockout. Since the strikers acted, not the company, that ruling seems bizarre.

Jensen refused to elaborate, however, citing supposed rules on confidentiality. When asked what rules would prevent the public from learning about a costly decision done in its name by a bureaucrat, a DLT flack pointed to a state law that says employment records “shall not be published or be open to public inspection.”

This retreat from accountability seems mind-boggling, to say the least, in a case that involves not one employee but a large group — a decision that could have a significant impact on the state’s unemployment insurance fund, which other Rhode Island employers also pay to maintain. Certainly the public deserves a full explanation for why the benefits were approved.

Not surprisingly, Verizon disagrees with the decision and is challenging it in court. The challenge certainly seems to be in the public’s interest.

“Everyone knows that the employees were on strike — their picket signs said so,” said Verizon spokesman Richard Young.

Raimondo, elected on a pledge to welcome businesses and rebuild the state’s economy, should explain why she thinks this is the right decision when it sends precisely the wrong message to private employers — you know, the job creators the state claims it wants to lure and keep here.