Relates to the definition of employer and the duty of public employers to develop and implement programs to prevent workplace violence.
Summary
This bill amends New York Labor Law section 27-b, which governs public employer workplace violence prevention programs. The bill expands the definition of “employer” for purposes of that law to include not only state and local government entities, public authorities, and certain authorized agencies serving children adjudicated delinquent, but also not-for-profit corporations that receive at least 50 percent of their budget from government sources.
By broadening the definition of employer, the bill would extend the duty to develop and implement workplace violence prevention programs to a larger set of publicly funded nonprofit organizations. These entities would be treated more like public employers under the workplace violence prevention statute and would need to comply with the same planning and program requirements. The bill takes effect immediately if enacted.
Impact
The bill would amend Labor Law section 27-b to expand the scope of covered employers under New York’s workplace violence prevention requirements. In practical terms, it would impose program-development and implementation obligations on certain government-funded not-for-profit corporations, in addition to existing public-sector employers and authorized agencies already covered by the statute. This could affect nonprofit service providers that rely heavily on public funding, especially those operating in settings with elevated workplace safety risks.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or recorded vote information is available for this bill, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be a workplace safety measure aimed at extending protections to workers in publicly funded nonprofit settings. The overall framing is preventive and regulatory rather than controversial on its face.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the expansion of employer obligations to not-for-profit corporations receiving at least half of their budget from government sources. Supporters would likely view this as a necessary extension of workplace violence protections to workers performing public or quasi-public services, while opponents may be concerned about added compliance burdens, administrative costs, and whether heavily funded nonprofits should be treated as public employers for this purpose. Another possible issue is the breadth of the 50 percent government-funding threshold and how it would be applied in practice.
Requires public and not-for-profit libraries to implement risk evaluations and determinations, workplace trainings, and other measures for the prevention of workplace violence.