Committee hears testimony on 'No More 24' bill to end 24‑hour home‑care shifts

At a hearing of the New York City Council Committee on Civil Service and Labor, members heard testimony on Intro. 303, the “No More 24” Act, which would prohibit scheduling home‑care aides for shifts longer than 12 hours and cap scheduled hours at 56 per week unless the worker gives consent and the employer provides two weeks' notice.

Supporters — including Council Member Christopher Marte, State Senator Jessica Ramos and Assembly Member Ron Kim — described 24‑hour scheduling as exploitative and harmful mainly to immigrant women of color who make up a large share of the city’s home‑care workforce. Marte said organizing and hunger strikes pushed the bill back to the Council and framed 24‑hour shifts as a human‑rights issue. “These shifts take on workers the United Nations definition of torture,” Marte said.

The Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) told the Committee it supports the bill’s intent but raised implementation concerns. DCWP witnesses explained current New York State practice allows 24‑hour scheduling under a rule that employers may pay for 13 hours of a 24‑hour assignment when the worker receives three hours for meals and eight hours designated rest (five of which must be uninterrupted sleep). DCWP summarized Intro. 303’s text as prohibiting scheduled shifts longer than 12 hours, barring consecutive 12‑hour shifts or more than 12 scheduled hours in any 24‑hour period except for limited unforeseeable circumstances, and capping scheduled hours at 56 per week unless the worker consents and the employer provides two weeks’ notice to DCWP.

DCWP also warned that banning 24‑hour scheduling without additional Medicaid funding for providers could reduce available shifts and disrupt care. The agency said it lacks a comprehensive dataset on how many agencies still assign 24‑hour shifts but estimated roughly 8–10% of the city’s home‑care workforce are assigned 24‑hour schedules; DCWP officials said further work with the State and fiscal authorities will be required to implement the change.

Workers, health professionals and advocates gave extensive public testimony. A retired physician representing physician groups said 24‑hour shifts are unsafe for workers and patients, and that interrupted sleep undermines care quality. Dozens of home‑care workers described long stretches of 24‑hour assignments, interrupted or nonexistent sleep, and chronic health problems linked to the schedules. One caregiver testified, “Working day and night without rest, I became a patient myself and developed heart disease.” Testimony also cited examples of agencies that have shifted to two 12‑hour assignments without reported systemwide funding crises.

Assembly Member Ron Kim and others pointed to investigative reports and audits alleging systematic wage theft by contractors and managed‑care intermediaries (MCOs), arguing that agency and insurer practices have created incentives to underpay aides. DCWP described ongoing city investigations into paid‑time violations and cited past restitution settlements and recoveries.

The Committee’s line of questioning focused on data gaps, enforcement capacity, workforce capacity to replace 24‑hour assignments with shorter shifts, and the need for state funding or reimbursement changes to avoid disruptions to patient care. DCWP said its fiscal impact statements estimate additional staffing needs for multiple bills on the Council’s agenda and that the agency has requested more staff through the budget process.

The hearing closed with no formal vote; DCWP and members said they will continue coordination with state officials, advocates and agencies to refine implementation steps. The Committee accepted written testimony for the record and adjourned the session.