Requires that all human services contracts between any public entity and a human services provider stipulate that the public entity will pay no less than 150% of the higher of: the otherwise applicable minimum wage in the state or any otherwise applicable wage rule or order and that the necessary amounts have been appropriated to ensure payment of such minimum wage.
This bill would amend New York labor law to create a new wage requirement for certain human services workers employed by nonprofit, charitable, and local public providers that contract with state or local government entities, or that receive public funds to provide human services. For covered contracts, the public entity would have to ensure that workers are paid at least 150% of the higher of the state minimum wage or any otherwise applicable wage order or rule. The bill defines human services broadly to include services aimed at improving health and welfare by addressing issues such as domestic violence, child abuse, hunger, homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse, poverty, and related social problems.
The bill also requires that covered contracts include a stipulation that adequate funding has been appropriated to meet the wage mandate. It would apply immediately to new contracts and to contracts or agreements that are issued, renewed, modified, altered, or amended on or after the effective date. In practical terms, the measure would raise labor costs for government-funded human services providers and likely require state and local agencies to increase contract funding to comply with the new wage floor.
The bill would add a new section 224-g to the Labor Law and directly affect contracts between public entities and human services providers, including nonprofit organizations, charitable organizations, and local agencies. It would establish a statutory wage floor of 150% of the applicable minimum wage or wage order for covered human services workers and tie compliance to appropriated funding, creating a new state-law requirement for public contracts and potentially increasing appropriations, contract rates, and administrative oversight for state and local governments.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a worker-support and provider-stabilization proposal, with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. The sponsors and subject matter suggest a generally favorable posture toward improving compensation in the human services sector, especially for low-wage workers serving vulnerable populations. Because there is no transcript or voting history here, there is no documented opposition or formal support to gauge beyond the bill’s design and sponsorship.
The main likely point of contention is fiscal: the bill requires public entities to pay a significantly higher wage and also requires that sufficient appropriations be in place, which could increase state and local contract costs. Another possible issue is scope, since the definition of human services is broad and could cover a wide range of nonprofit and publicly funded social service programs. Supporters would likely emphasize workforce retention, fair pay, and service quality, while critics may focus on budget impacts, contract affordability, and whether the mandate could reduce the number of providers able to participate in public contracts.