After nearly a week of fasting on the steps of City Hall, a group of New York City home care workers has pressed pause on its hunger strike, saying it won a key commitment from the City Council speaker. Speaker Julie Menin has pledged to pursue a deal on legislation that would end 24‑hour home care shifts, and the workers, most of them immigrant women who provide round‑the‑clock care, say they are giving negotiations a little breathing room.
They insist the pause is strictly tactical. Organizers say they will keep the pressure on the Council until any verbal promises turn into an enforceable law that actually changes how shifts are scheduled and paid.
The workers halted the fast after the speaker's office agreed to negotiate changes to the so‑called No More 24 measure and to share a revised draft, according to Crain's New York Business. The hunger strike began in mid‑April as activists pushed the Council to move Intro. 303 to a vote, an escalation that followed weeks of sit‑ins outside City Hall.
What the No More 24 Bill Would Change
Intro. 303, introduced by Councilmember Christopher Marte, would bar employers from assigning any single home care shift longer than 12 hours, prohibit back‑to‑back 12‑hour shifts, and cap assigned hours at 56 per week unless a worker gives written consent.
The proposal would also give the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection authority to investigate violations, issue fines, and enforce new notice and recordkeeping rules for employers. The bill text and official summaries are posted on the Council's legislation tracker, according to the New York City Council.
Why Workers Say the Law Is Needed
Advocates and caregiver testimony describe a system where many aides on 24‑hour assignments are officially paid for only about 13 hours while still expected to be available overnight. Workers say that setup is unsafe for them and for the people they care for.
Grassroots groups and the Ain't I A Woman? coalition, which organizes predominantly immigrant women home attendants, have driven the campaign to end the live‑in model. Organizers' materials from Ain't I A Woman? detail workers' accounts of fragmented sleep, chronic health problems, and the difficulty of safely caring for clients while exhausted. Reporting by Documented has also chronicled those testimonies and the campaign's demands.
Funding Fights And Fears For Patient Care
Not everyone is cheering a straight ban on 24‑hour shifts. Disability advocates, legal service groups and some home care providers warn that changing the rules without more Medicaid funding could leave many clients without affordable in‑home support or push them into institutions.
Union and agency estimates have taken center stage in that argument. One often cited figure pegs the cost of moving to split coverage in the five boroughs at roughly $450 million a year, a number that has shaped talks between the Council, the mayor's office and Albany. Those funding concerns, along with letters from disability rights organizations, are among the reasons the bill's language remains under revision, as reported by the Brooklyn Eagle.
What Happens Next For The No More 24 Act
For now, the measure is still active but laid over in committee while sponsors and stakeholders work through amendments aimed at safeguarding both workers and clients. Advocates say the hunger strike is temporarily on hold to give the speaker's office time to deliver those promised revisions. If talks stall, they warn, they are ready to return to direct action.
The City Council filing tracks the bill's formal status and history, according to the New York City Council, while Crain's New York Business has reported on the latest commitments from the speaker's office and the ongoing negotiations.
