New York Assembly Bill A02272

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/16/25
• Refer: 1/16/25

Caption

Limits the number of consecutive hours worked by certain employees of cities of one million or more; provides that employees of cities of one million or more who are subject to a collective bargaining agreement shall not work more than 17 consecutive hours in a work day.

Summary

This bill would add a new section to the Labor Law limiting the length of a workday for certain employees in cities with populations of one million or more. Specifically, it applies to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement and prohibits requiring them to work more than 17 consecutive hours in a single workday, unless a different arrangement is allowed under the applicable collective bargaining agreement. The measure is narrowly targeted to employees in the state’s largest cities, which in practice would primarily affect New York City workers who are covered by union contracts. It creates a statutory floor on maximum consecutive hours worked, while preserving the ability of collective bargaining agreements to provide otherwise, meaning the bill would interact directly with existing labor-management negotiations and workplace scheduling rules.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would amend the New York Labor Law by creating a new section 168-a governing hours of labor for employees of cities of one million or more. It would impose a 17-hour cap on consecutive hours worked in a workday for employees covered by collective bargaining agreements, unless the agreement itself authorizes a different arrangement. The bill would therefore affect employers in large cities, public-sector or city-related workers covered by union contracts, and the terms of collective bargaining agreements that address overtime, shift length, and emergency staffing.

Sentiment

There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal debate or roll-call sentiment is available. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a worker-protection approach focused on limiting excessively long shifts, while still respecting collective bargaining. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the available context means the overall sentiment cannot be assessed beyond the bill’s apparent labor-protective intent.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the balance between worker protections and collective bargaining autonomy. Supporters would likely view the 17-hour limit as a safeguard against fatigue and unsafe working conditions, especially for employees who may face extended or emergency shifts. Opponents or skeptics might argue that the bill could reduce scheduling flexibility for employers and unions in large-city operations, particularly in settings that rely on long shifts or emergency coverage. Because the bill expressly allows contrary provisions in an applicable collective bargaining agreement, the practical dispute would likely center on whether the statutory cap is necessary or whether such limits should be left entirely to negotiation.