The Endless Shift: NYC’s Battle to Abolish the 24-Hour Workday

For over a decade, a quiet crisis has persisted behind the closed doors of New York City’s apartments. Thousands of home care workers, primarily immigrant women of color, have been subjected to the "24-hour workday"—a labor practice that mandates they remain on call, alert, and active for an entire day, yet compensates them for only 13 hours. This systemic exploitation, which critics and human rights organizations have likened to modern-day indentured servitude, has now reached a legislative breaking point.

The latest legislative effort, the "No More 24 Act" (Intro. 303-2026), aimed to mandate the splitting of these shifts into two 12-hour segments. Instead of a landmark victory, the bill has become a battleground, stalled in committee amidst a firestorm of political maneuvering, union opposition, and an intensifying public clash between the rights of disabled New Yorkers and the dignity of their caregivers.

The Mechanics of a Systemic Failure

To understand the urgency of the No More 24 Act, one must examine the legal fiction that sustains the current system. Under the New York State Department of Labor’s current guidelines, home care agencies are permitted to pay workers for only 13 hours of a 24-hour shift, provided that the worker receives three hours for meals and eight hours for sleep.

In practice, this policy is fundamentally disconnected from the realities of home health care. Patients who require round-the-clock care often need assistance with turning to prevent bedsores, using the bathroom, or managing medical emergencies throughout the night. As a result, home attendants are rarely able to secure even a single hour of uninterrupted sleep, let alone the required eight. Consequently, these women work while sleep-deprived, leading to catastrophic physical tolls, including permanent bone damage, chronic insomnia, and cardiovascular issues.

Furthermore, the compensation structure creates a trap. Many union agreements mandate a minimum of 130 hours of work per month to qualify for essential health benefits. Because these shifts are grueling and often lead to injury, workers who cannot maintain this pace face the immediate loss of their own medical coverage, further entrenching their reliance on a system that is actively eroding their health.

Chronology of a Stalled Reform

The fight to end the 24-hour shift is not new; it is a movement forged through years of advocacy and disappointment.

• 2022: City Council Member Christopher Marte introduced the initial legislation aimed at banning the 24-hour workday. Despite the growing visibility of the Ain’t I A Woman?! Campaign—a coalition led by the Chinese Staff and Workers’ Association and the National Mobilization Against Sweatshops—the bill never made it to a floor vote.
• 2024: A second version of the bill was introduced. Again, despite mounting public pressure and testimonies from workers describing their physical deterioration, the legislation stalled.
• March 2026: Intro. 303 was introduced with high expectations. It appeared to have the necessary support within the City Council to pass. However, the momentum was abruptly halted when Mayor Zohran Mamdani, following reported pressure from Governor Kathy Hochul regarding potential Medicaid funding shortfalls, proposed significant changes to the bill’s language.
• April–May 2026: The tension escalated into a humanitarian protest. For weeks, home health aides held sit-ins at City Hall, followed by a harrowing week-long hunger strike. By mid-May, the bill remained trapped in the Committee on Civil Service and Labor, with no scheduled date for a vote.

Official Responses and Political Collusion

The opposition to Intro. 303 is as complex as it is controversial. The Legal Aid Society, joined by 17 disability advocacy groups, issued a joint letter urging the City Council to kill the bill. Their primary argument is that the legislation would destabilize the existing home care infrastructure, potentially forcing thousands of disabled New Yorkers into institutional care if the cost of 24-hour staffing becomes unsustainable for the state-funded Medicaid system.

However, many in the disability community have vehemently rejected this narrative. Activists like Adrian Easterling and others have pointed out that the current system is not only abusive to workers but also dangerous for patients. "I have been on the receiving end of burnt-out, exploited, and sleep-deprived caregivers," Easterling testified, citing a personal experience where a caregiver’s exhaustion led to a fall.

From the perspective of labor organizers like Zishun Ning, the opposition from groups like the Legal Aid Society and District Council 37 is a "false binary." They argue that insurance companies, not disabled patients, are the true beneficiaries of the status quo. By forcing a choice between the needs of the disabled and the rights of workers, opponents of the bill are shielding a system that generates massive corporate profits while providing substandard, dangerous care.

The Human Cost: A Legacy of Exploitation

The personal stories behind the No More 24 movement are stark. Lai Yee Chan, a former home attendant who worked 24-hour shifts for 22 years, serves as a sobering example of the system’s impact. After sustaining a permanent shoulder injury from lifting a client, she was forced out of the workforce. Her experience with the Chinese-American Planning Council (CPC) and the subsequent arbitration process—which resulted in a settlement she and others deemed "insulting"—highlights the lack of accountability for wage theft.

The United Nations Working Group on discrimination against women and girls addressed this issue in an April 2026 letter to the US Department of State. The UN noted that the practice "would appear to allow a practice of exploitation disproportionately affecting migrant women," and warned that it violates fundamental human rights, including the right to health, family life, and freedom from violence.

Despite this, the official stance from some union leaders, such as those at DC37, remains that an outright ban would jeopardize the overtime pay and benefits of their members. This has created a deep rift, with rank-and-file members openly criticizing their leadership for prioritizing administrative concerns over the immediate physical well-being of the women they represent.

Implications for the Future of Care

The failure to pass Intro. 303 represents a critical juncture for New York City’s labor and social safety net policies. If the bill continues to be delayed, the implications are three-fold:

1. Continued Erosion of Health: The physical and mental health of the city’s home care workforce will continue to decline, likely leading to higher turnover rates and an eventual collapse of the home care sector anyway, as fewer people are willing to endure such extreme conditions.
2. Institutionalization Risks: While opponents argue that the bill will force institutionalization, proponents argue that the status quo is already unsustainable. The reliance on exhausted workers is a ticking time bomb for the quality of care provided to the disabled.
3. A Test of Political Integrity: The backlash against Mayor Mamdani—who ran on a platform that included the promise to end the 24-hour workday—highlights a growing disillusionment among immigrant communities. The feeling of betrayal is palpable, as workers who mobilized their families and networks to elect him now see their concerns dismissed as a "racist trope" by his administration.

The "No More 24" movement is not merely a request for better pay; it is a demand for basic human dignity. As the coalition continues to call on City Council Speaker Julie Menin to bring the original, unamended version of Intro. 303 to a vote, the eyes of the nation are on New York. The city that prides itself on being a bastion of progressive labor rights is currently overseeing a system that effectively mandates 24-hour labor.

Whether the Council chooses to side with the insurance companies and the convenience of the state, or with the thousands of women who keep the city’s most vulnerable residents alive, will define the legacy of this legislative session. For now, the hunger strikes have ended, the protest signs remain stored, and the 24-hour workday continues—a stark reminder of the distance between political rhetoric and the reality of life for those who provide the most intimate, essential care in our society.