DC 37 Plans Anti-No More 24 Rally; Home Care Workers to Hold Counter Protest
Home care workers rallying outside the gates City Hall on Friday announced they are going on another hunger strike in support of the No More 24 bill. Many will also be picketing an anti-No More 24 rally at City Hall Park planed for May 20 at noon. Photos/Joe Maniscalco
By Joe Maniscalco
Opponents of legislation ending round-the-clock shifts in New York City’s home care industry are expected to argue at a rally in City Hall Park on Wednesday that while “abusive”—little can be done to change a system widely acknowledged as nothing less than modern day slavery.
“While we support ending abusive 24-hour work conditions, this bill fails to address the underlying state Medicaid authorization and funding structure that created the problem in the first place,” Belkys Garcia, Staff Attorney in the Civil Law Reform Unit at The Legal Aid Society, said in a statement released on Tuesday.
Garcia’s statement came in conjunction with the Legal Aid Society’s new opposition memo to Intro. 303—the No More 24 bill.
And it largely reflects the same position opponents of legislation banning round-the-clock shifts in New York City’s home care industry have adopted for as long as the No More 24 workers’ rights movement has been in existence.
While home care workers and their advocates have spent the last decade in the streets fighting to end round-the-clock shifts in New York City’s home care industry, opponents of the effort have largely spent their time bemoaning the status quo involving Medicaid funding and lamenting the central role Managed Care Organizations—otherwise known as private insurance companies—play in perpetuating the 24-hour workday.
Author and activist Keith Rosenthal speaks out in support of Council Member Chris Marte’s No More 24 bill.
Opposition to No More 24 legislation now also includes the tag-team partnership of Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Governor Kathy Hochul.
“It’s extremely hypocritical,” Intro. 303 sponsor Chris Marte told Work-Bites at the latest No More 24 rally held outside the gates of City Hall on Friday, May 15. “But I also feel that [the fact that] they are making so much noise now means that we’re getting closer to the end. If we didn’t have a shot of passing [the No More 24 bill], then they wouldn’t be expending resources or the time [to stop it].”
Former City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams spent her entire tenure in office suppressing passage of Council Member Marte’s No More 24 bills.
Home care workers—overwhelmingly older immigrant women of color—announced at the same rally on Friday that they will go on another hunger strike outside the gates of City Hall in support of Council Member Marte’s No More 24 bill similar to the one they held last month.
The No More 24 bill got a fresh hearing in February, followed by a pledge from new City Council Speaker Julie Menin to finally bring the legislation to the floor for a vote in April.
That didn’t actually happen, however. Instead, the ongoing effort to pass Council Member Marte’s No More 24 bill ending round-the-clock shifts in New York City’s home care industry has met with a fresh round of opposition from those mentioned above—as well as District Council 37 under the direct leadership of Executive Director Henry Garrido.
Garrido continues to argue that passing the No More 24 bill would undermine the collective bargaining rights of some of his members.
New York City home care workers arrive at last Friday’s No More 24 rally outside the gates of City Hall.
Interestingly, it’s the same argument the DC 37 head made and continues to make against Intro. 1096—another long languishing bill from City Council Member Marte aimed at preventing New York City municipal retirees from being stripped of the Traditional Medicare and MediGap benefits they earned after decades on the job.
“DC 37 members, assemble,” the union posted on its Instagram page four days ago. “Our union siblings in Local 389 Home Care Employees need our support to fight legislation being considered by the New York City Council that could jeopardize their hard-won collective bargaining rights, health benefits and pensions.”
The post goes on to claim that “forcing two 12-hour shifts means unionized workers stand to lost their negotiated wages, health care, and access to retirement benefits.”
Despite having just 14 cosponsors on the latest version of Intro. 303, Council Member Marte insisted on Friday that the drive to pass the No More 24 bill “has a lot of traction,” and that advocates are “really close to the finish line.”
Speaker Menin could not be reached for comment.
It’s important to note that agencies employing New York City home care workers already have the ability to coax MCOs into approving split shifts for those home care workers the agencies employ—that process does exist.
“If you’re a patient getting 24-hour care but your worker is only getting paid 13 of those hours, you can appeal to the insurance company right now for split shifts,” Council Member Marte told Work-Bites on Friday. “We’re not doing anything new—we say that everyone that is receiving 24-hour care should receive 24 hour care—and nothing less. But we see insurance companies in every single field caring more about profit than people. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had their fingers in all the noise being made now.”
Leaders from several Democratic Party clubs rallied last Friday in support of home care workers fighting to end round-the-clock shifts in New York City’s home care industry.
Given the “abusive 24-hour work conditions” that New York City’s home care workers continue to be subjected to—Work-Bites wanted to know if the Legal Aid Society has developed a plan of its own to actually help home care workers and their allies end round-the-clock shifts in the industry.
A Legal Aid Society spokesperson on Tuesday told Work-Bites in an email that the organization “will continue representing home care workers forced to work 24-hour shifts for only 13 hours of pay, as we have in Chen v. Reardon."
“We will also continue advocating to end improper 24-hour ‘live-in’ authorizations issued by Medicaid managed long-term care plans through the Home Care Savings and Reinvestment Act (S2332A/A2018A)," the spokesperson continued. “We hope to work with proponents of Intro 303 on state legislation that includes meaningful protections for both workers and consumers.”
Home care workers vociferously jeered the Legal Aid Society’s opposition to No More 24 legislation at a demonstration outside the organization’s 199 Water Street offices in Manhattan on May 11.
Most of New York City’s unionized home care workers, meanwhile, are members of 1199SEIU—and not DC37.
This week, 1199SEIU Press Secretary Rose Ryan also told Work-Bites that “Protecting homecare workers and consumers cannot be treated as an either/or choice” and that “homecare workers should be paid for every hour that they are required to be in a consumer’s home, and round-the-clock care for those who need it must be preserved.”
At the same time Rose further stated, “1199SEIU supports legislation abolishing 24-hour shifts that fully funds every homecare hour worked, to prevent vulnerable New Yorkers from losing access to care while at the same time ensuring that workers are compensated fairly. Unfortunately, this legislation does not set aside any additional dollars to fund care.”
Home care workers and their advocates, including members of DC37, plan to hold a counter demonstration to Wednesday’s anti-No More 24 rally at City Hall Park. That action outside the gates of City Hall at Broadway and Murray is expected to begin at 11:30 a.m.
Work-Bites will have full coverage of both rallies.Work-Bites also reached out to both the Mayor’s Office and DC37 for comment on this story, but neither acknowledged those requests for comment.