By: Mars Marte
Thursday, April 16, marked the beginning of a 24-hour hunger strike by home care workers after decades of fighting New York (NY) State Legislation.
The current working regulations allow providers to pay employees for only 13 hours of their 24-hour working day. This regulation is allowed because the state also requires workers to be allotted uninterrupted three-meal breaks and five hours of sleep. In practice, these benefits seem to be nonexistent, with workers clocking in nearly 96 hours, as confessed by Yunfang Zhang, a member of the home aides workforce and the current strike, to reporters at the Brooklyn Eagle.
Such drastic measures have been taken after workers demanded that city officials introduce and pass Bill Int. 303, most commonly known as the “No More 24 Act.” With this act in place, home care workers would have the means to end exploitative policies, allowing for those who dedicate themselves to others’ well-being to have their own needs met.
The “No More 24 Act,” which was introduced by Councilman Christopher Marte on Jan. 29, would prohibit home care employers from assigning any home care employee a shift that is longer than 12 hours, consecutive 12-hour shifts, or shifts totaling more than 12 hours in any 24-hour period.
Furthermore, the bill seeks to end 96-hour workweeks, barring employers from assigning more than 56 hours per week to a home care employee, unless an employee consents in writing to excess hours.
If the bill were to come into effect, it would empower the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) to conduct investigations of violations of this bill and impose a $500 fine on violators.
The act has not been scheduled for a vote, despite Speaker Julie Menin promising to have the bill passed in April.
With grueling hours like these and the lack of a work-life balance, employees are at a higher risk of suffering from extreme fatigue, and home care workers like Reina Caba, who told reporters at Documented. “Because I’m strong, they always gave me the bedridden patients, and all the years of turning them hurt my back […] I had to keep working despite the pain because I had to take care of the children and pay the rent”.
The sustainability of patient care has been a concern for the bill’s opponents and those reliant on the care home aides provide, such as reporter Julia Yepez-Macbeth from AMNY, who fears the repercussions of eliminating the 24-hour work shifts.
In a letter sent by over a dozen advocacy groups addressed to Menin, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and the City Council, the groups sympathize with the home aides, but also argue that “all people with disabilities deserve the ability to live in the community and to get the care they need to do so, without the threat that they will lose the services they deserve or that they will end up in an institution.”
Furthermore, advocacy groups question how the split shifts will be financed due to home care’s primary source of funds being Medicaid, an entity the city has no control over.
Supporters of the act stand tall against the opposition, highlighting that pitting workers and patients against one another distracts from the main beneficiary of the current system in place, insurance companies’ profit margins.
“[Legal Aid is] selling out both workers and disabled people in favor of the profits of insurance companies,” stated in a testimony from a young disabled worker on NoMore24. “The system wants to exploit people for as much profit as possible. […] People cannot be subjected to abusive conditions for the sake of insurance company profits.”
Those on the frontlines of the strike further state on their official website, insurance companies, such as New York Healthfirst, purposefully keep home aides understaffed and underpaid in order to suppress labor costs.”
While the fight centers on labor conditions, its impact extends far beyond the workforce. Home care aides are responsible for some of the city’s most vulnerable residents.
Fatigue from healthcare workers can lead to mistakes, delayed responses, and emotional burnout, ultimately affecting the very people the system is meant to protect.
The striking aides aim to secure the right to reject 24-hour shifts while preserving the lives of their patients at home, rather than in an institution.
Mimi Rosenberg, a Senior Staff Attorney at Legal Aid Society, wrote a letter to support those protesting.
“But the real choice is not between humane working conditions and patient care. It is whether we continue to prioritize insurer margins, or restructure public funding so care remains at home—safely and with dignity.”
The longer the bill stalls, the longer workers remain in conditions many describe as unsustainable. Organizers of the hunger strike stress how it is no longer just a policy debate; it is a matter of survival.
Whether through public pressure, political accountability, or continued organizing, the outcome of this fight will determine not only the future of home care work in New York City but the standard of care for thousands who depend on it.