Sen. Tom Duane

Senator Tom Duane, a longtime outspoken gay-rights activist, is leaving the State Senate on January 1st after a prolific 14-year career representing Manhattan communities from East Midtown, Downtown and the Upper West Side. Duane says he’s ready to move on with his life, though he plans to remain active in pursuing the agenda items most important to him in whatever way he can. We spoke to the Senator about his reasons for retiring and his plans for the future.

What made you decide not to seek reelection?

I’ve been here for seven terms, I wanted to do something else and realized it’s time to start the next chapter.

How have you seen state politics evolve in the course of your career?

I’ve seen much of the legislation I pushed for have a direct impact on people’s lives. I’ve seen these things spread to other cities and states as well. It’s been important to me to work hard to pass legislation that serves as a model for other cities.

What were the defining moments of your career as a member of the Senate?

I think I set a good example in that every piece of legislation I pushed for, whether in the minority or majority, [and] had support from both sides of the aisle. I also made a direct impact on people’s lives passing legislation on hate crimes, health care, marriage equality, gender identity expression and sex trafficking. I supported the Midwifery Modernization act to allow nurse midwives to practice in New York State. I’ve supported routine HIV testing and helped lessen the stigma, particularly within correctional facilities. I also supported the prohibition of insurance companies to create tier four drugs with incredibly expensive co-payments.

What are your plans now that you have made the decision to retire from the Senate?

I would say “retire” is not a completely accurate term, I’m just not ready for reelection. I plan to continue working in my own small way to make the world a better place, I’m just not sure of the form of that yet. I plan to indulge in the luxury of thinking about what that may be. I hope to continue working for those who have not had a voice in government. I will still focus on working incredibly hard until the end of my term on January 1st.

What will you miss the most?

I’ll miss the challenges of garnering the widest possible support for issues I believe in, especially from people who have not shared my points of view. I’ll miss finding that common ground, and working with people in a collegial manner to pass bills that help people in a way they should be helped. Now I’ll be doing that in a different way than in elected office.

—Alissa Fleck

By Alan S. Chartock

There is a new bill floating around the Legislature that would bar prosecutors and the police from confiscating condoms from “sex workers,” also known as prostitutes.

Prosecutors use the seized condoms as evidence against the prostitutes. Obviously, if sex workers use condoms, both they and their clients are protected from disease. The idea that the police are confiscating the condoms and/or using them as evidence for convicting prostitutes seems ludicrous when we know that the condoms are protecting people. Prostitution in any form is the world’s oldest profession; it will be around long after we are gone. You don’t have to be in the Secret Service to understand this truth.

Naturally, many law enforcement professionals are against changing the law. If they are convicting prostitutes, they don’t want anything standing in their way, even the public’s health.

There is a political subtext to all of this, which comes down to control of the New York State Senate by the Republicans or Democrats. Right now, just a few measly votes are needed for the Democrats to take control of the Senate. The Democrats did such a bad job running their house after they took control a few years back that lots of people were left thinking that the state was better off without them. Maybe that’s why they were kicked out—they ignored the secret of New York politics, which is that if you don’t have the middle class (they vote big time), you can’t win.

In fact, one could surmise that one of the reasons so many of us, based on the evidence, think Gov. Andrew Cuomo prefers to work with the Republicans rather than the Democrats in the Senate is that the Senate Democrats are far more progressive than Cuomo. This is a governor who goes where the votes are. He doesn’t deviate from that. His father was known for doing the opposite, and in the end, it probably cost him his last re-election effort. Just Google “Mario Cuomo death penalty.”

The middle class doesn’t appear to think or care that much about sex workers. That’s why, when State Sen. Velmanette Montgomery stood up to defend the utterly defensible condom bill, she made a point to say, “We are not endorsing prostitution.”

She went on to say, “It is simply the fact that over 100,000 people right now are infected with HIV and AIDS in New York City.”

Sometimes, doing the right thing flies in the face of good electoral politics. My bet is that the Senate Republicans see Democratic Sen. Montgomery’s bill as an early Christmas present. In fact, one has to look no further than to Montgomery’s insistence that she and her conference were not “endorsing prostitution.” When you suggest that you are not doing something, you lead the reader, viewer or listener to the conclusion that you are doing something. In other words, rather than denying something, you are probably better off keeping your mouth shut.

Let posterity record that in this case, I believe the senator is correct. Forbidding the seizure of condoms from sex workers is courageous because it is the right thing to do, even if it isn’t the politically expedient thing to do. In fact, instead of moving to the middle to get more middle-class votes, this bill risks alienating a crucial voting bloc.

If just one life can be saved by encouraging the use of condoms, this bill will be worth it. Sometimes, you just have to do what is right and not what is political. I am waiting to hear Cuomo’s position on this. Just remember, though, that I am not endorsing prostitution.

Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

With Joe Carvin’s departure from the race for the GOP U.S. Senate nomination, top consultant Bill O’Reilly’s strange couple of days are over.

O’Reilly confirmed that with Carvin out of the race, he is now back doing press for Rep. Bob Turner, whose campaign for Congress was helped enormously by O’Reilly’s press work. But when Turner announced for Senate this week,with O’Reilly already committed, another member of O’Reilly’s firm, Jessica Proud, handled press for Turner’s campaign, while O’Reilly continued to do Carvin. Both offered to quit both campaigns because of the conflicts, O’Reilly said.

E. O’Brien Murray, who managed Turner’s 2011 congressional campaign and had been considered the mastermind behind the upset, also had been with Carvin.

Here’s the statement that went out this morning:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JOE CARVIN: ‘REPUBLICANS WILL BE WELL REPRESENTED IN RACE AGAINST GILLIBRAND’

Withdraws Candidacy; Remains Neutral

Rochester, NY – March 16…Westchester businessman and Rye Town Supervisor Joe Carvin (R) withdrew his candidacy today for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate.

When Carvin made the decision to get into this race, the Republican Party had only one declared candidate for the office. Carvin entered the race because he wanted to ensure that the Republican Party faithful had a choice of candidates and to ensure that voters understood the depth and urgency of the financial crisis confronting the nation and threatening our long-term jobs prospects.

“I was pleased with the positive feedback I received from Party members and leaders around the state when I talked about the need to fundamentally restructure our entitlement systems, our tax code and health care,” Carvin said.

Carvin made it clear that this kind of fundamental reform could not go forward without shared sacrifice among the people of New York and the United States. “Far too often politicians are afraid to tell voters the truth about the severity of the fiscal and jobs crisis we are facing. I was pleased that the New York Republicans are prepared roll up their sleeves and take on today’s daunting challenges.”

Since Carvin’s decision to enter the race, two new candidates have decided to run for US Senate joining George Maragos in the competition, Wendy Long and Congressman Bob Turner.

“My number one goal in entering the race was to ensure that the Republican Party had a nominee capable of defeating Ms. Gillibrand in November,” Mr. Carvin said. “But in the last several days – after Ms. Gillibrand was ranked the most left-wing senator in America by National Journal and after she voted for higher gas prices by opposing the Keystone XL Pipeline – I believe any of the candidates in this race can beat her. I am one hundred percent confident that I would have received the 25% of the Republican delegate vote necessary to get on the ballot, but I am now comfortable that my party is well represented.”

The New York State Republican Convention, at which a Party nominee will be chosen, is being held today in Rochester, NY.

“This has been a tremendously uplifting experience and I am extraordinarily grateful to all those around the state who have supported me in ways large and small over the past few weeks. I am particularly grateful to my own county chairman Doug Colety and his committee for giving me such strong support.”

To see more from City & State click here.

“Only a nonpartisan solution accurately reflects the voting publc,” – Liz Krueger

by Liz Krueger

Liz Krueger, (D) Senator, NY

Two years ago, I committed to vote against any redistricting plan unless it was developed through a nonpartisan redistricting process. I stand by that commitment, and not just because our current process is flawed. Not surprisingly, both houses’ majority parties are pushing their own partisan plans, despite the fact that every Republican senator and a majority of Assembly members made the same pledge I made: to vote against partisan redistricting and support real reform. It is now up to Gov. Andrew Cuomo to veto the plan and allow a federal court to draw districts without the interference of self-interested legislators.
Some have argued that instead of sending the matter to the courts, Cuomo should allow a bad map this year in exchange for the promise of a better redistricting process in 2022. Unfortunately, this can’t work. Albany leaders have already welched on promises of reform—as the New York Times asked, “How can we trust this gang?”
Even if we could be guaranteed a better system a decade from now—which I believe is hardly certain—a decade is a long, long time to wait for reform. And make no mistake, the lines Albany’s partisan leaders have drawn are bad. They are designed for one purpose: benefiting the majority parties in each house at the expense of equal voting rights and rational representation for communities and neighborhoods.
The proposed state Senate lines are particularly egregious, but that’s to be expected; it is much harder to draw lines that protect Republican senators in New York because our state has been trending Democratic for years. To protect their vulnerable majority, the Senate Republicans’ proposal gives New York City one less district than the census figures warrant and adds an additional 63rd District upstate. They manage this—in spite of the fact that the state’s population has shifted downstate over the last 10 years—by once again putting many more people in New York City and Long Island districts than in upstate districts.
In addition, the plan once again creates Senate districts that systematically split the African-American and Latino communities on Long Island, despite dramatic growth in these communities over the last 10 years. Dividing, or “cracking,” these communities into multiple districts is a tactic clearly aimed at protecting the nine Republican incumbents who represent Long Island in the Senate.
The argument for accepting these maps is that we will fix the problem in the future. But the proposed constitutional amendment is simply too weak to work. The amendment would set up a commission appointed by politicians whose work could be edited or even rejected by the legislature. Even worse, the commission would be susceptible to deadlock and political pressure.
Furthermore, we would be accepting these bad lines on a promise, since the constitutional amendment would have to pass the legislature again next year before the voters could consider it. Since so many legislators have broken their promises on this subject already, I don’t understand why we are so sure they will keep their promise and vote for an amendment again next year, when the pressure is off.
Compare the Legislature’s political machinations, last-minute announcements and strategic heel-dragging to the work of magistrate judge Roanne Mann, the special master already overseeing our congressional redistricting after the Legislature failed to develop congressional lines in time to prepare for a June congressional primary. Judge Mann has announced clear deadlines, has openly named the experts she will be consulting and has articulated legitimate, explicit criteria for the maps she will produce. She has set a standard for what New Yorkers should expect in redistricting, a standard the Legislature has refused to meet.
Newsday’s editorial board stated it perfectly: “New York could still get fair political boundaries this year, but for it to happen, the special master, the judges and Cuomo are going to have to stand tall and make the difficult, proper decisions.”

Liz Krueger is a State senator who represents the Upper East Side.

From the goals of Occupy Wall Street to its public relations problem, I sat down with an anonymous OWS organizer to discuss their impressions of the movement thus far and what they see as the next step.

First, why don’t you want to be identified?

I don’t want to use my name because I can’t be as honest if I have to defend myself as a public spokesperson. I also don’t necessarily want to be giving out lots of information about myself.

The lack of structural leadership in the movement has been a source of criticism. Can you explain the format of the movement and how it is organized?

The idea is that it’s a way to organize a certain amount of agreement in protest. It’s not just about being upset. I think it’s pretty clear how using nonhierarchical processes and not using leadership is a political decision. It’s not just arbitrary—you are being willfully ignorant when you don’t understand what it’s about.

Being leaderless allows for more action because you don’t have to get things approved. The GA [General Assembly] is sort of like the Senate, except no one is elected. Sometimes people use it to ask for permission for things, which is not actually what we want—it’s what we’re against. There are some ways that the GA is just about people coming together, getting things done and letting each other know, “Hey, this is what I’m working on.”

There are a few people who have repeatedly portrayed themselves in media coverage as “leaders” or “organizers”—are they just lying?

Whenever anyone says they are a leader they are lying. But everyone is an organizer who is part of it, although that word does mean other things to other people. It can be more authoritarian. Here it is not. Saying you’re a leader—you are lying, you misunderstand the movement, and you are actually against it.

Was Zuccotti Park a strategic, informed, choice for the location of the movement or was it an accident that the park ended up being in a legal gray area as far as public/private ownership is concerned?

No, that was totally an accident. We were planning to go to Chase Manhattan Plaza, but the cops found out. We had backup plans, and had printed flyers that had a list of 10 back up GA locations. We went to Chase Manhattan Plaza and the police had closed it off, so we went to the second location, Zuccotti.

It’s important to note that OWS is not just Zuccotti Park. The park is complicated because it’s surrounded by police and pretty much controlled by the police. It can be a very scary place because of that—it’s like a police state. For minorities or just those who are poor, the feeling of being intimidated by police is very familiar. So a lot of people are participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement who are not part of Zuccotti Park.

Is OWS today what you expected it to be?

Ha! Dream big, right? Some of us had a contingency plan to meet up at 8 p.m. on the evening of September 17 in case the police managed to disperse the protest by 6 p.m. I mean, we were doing an unpermitted protest in the Financial District! I hoped we’d make it through a weekend—a week would be great. It is as much as I could have possibly expected, it is less than I want.

What more do you want?

Oh, you know, total overthrow of capitalism and revolution. I want an overthrow of representative democracy and, ultimately, democracy itself. I do not feel that all we need is just a better democracy. I am 100 percent against work as it currently exists. Think about how many people actually work on forms of production that are necessary to sustain life and how much unemployment is based on the creation of surplus goods.

Why do you think there has been so much outcry looking for a set of concrete demands from the protesters?

I think it’s more sinister than just wanting to fit everything into a category.

But I think a lot of people feel that if there were some specific demands they would be more inclined to support the movement.

This situation has nothing to do with a flaw in the democratic system that can be fixed; this situation is built and produced by capital. It doesn’t matter who’s in office, it doesn’t matter if it’s a Republican or a Democrat. Crisis is always inevitable.

What are the next steps?

We should be occupying everything. We shouldn’t just be saying that. An occupation doesn’t necessarily mean “camp out and live there”—you could have a dance party in a bank. I want Zuccotti Park to be open forever. We don’t need to be choosing, we need to be occupying everything. Winter is coming and we will need walls and a ceiling. But there are a lot of abandoned buildings. There are a lot of banks. Most of the space in New York City is not on the streets, most of it is inside.

I’d also like to see calls for a general strike. I’d like to see it get weirder. I’d like there to be more camps outside Zuccotti in New York.

Adriano Espaillat won more endorsements from elected officials in his bid for state Senate. The Dominican Assembly member from Washington Heights received the backing of John Liu and Tom DiNapoli, the city and state comptroller, respectively.

DiNapoli had served with Espaillat in the Assembly before he was appointed state comptroller.

Espaillat is seeking the state Senate seat of Eric Schneiderman, the Upper West Sider running for attorney general. The former West Side-based district now covers all of northern Manhattan, parts of the Upper West Side and parts of the Bronx.

Espaillat has been endorsed by a slew of West Side elected officials, including Schneiderman, Harlem’s State Sen. Bill Perkins, whose district covers parts of the Upper West Side, Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal and Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito.

Other candidates for the State Senate seat include District Leader Mark Levine of Washington Heights and Miosotis Muñoz, a former aide to Rep. Charles Rangel.

By Alan S. Chartock

Andrew Cuomo is positioning himself to be president of the United States. His chances of getting there will be infinitely increased if he is able to turn Albany into a calmer, less venal, more reflective and genuinely representative place.

Cuomo must win the Legislature’s confidence and at the same time convince the people that he really is going to clean things up. He’ll need to be perceived as being “good” and “likeable” as opposed to “tough guy Andy.” His friends at the radical right wing New York Post know that and they’re spreading around his picture, with his kids and his girlfriend and an atypical smile on his face. Old man Hearst would be proud.

To succeed, Cuomo has to reserve all the perks of being a strong executive. The more power he cedes to the Legislature, the weaker he becomes. He has to toughen the ethics rules. The less double-dealing and inside trading the legislative leaders can get away with and the more truly transparent the process is, the more powerful Cuomo will be. That’s why David Paterson vetoed the quarter-of-a-loaf ethics law that the Legislature was able to dupe the so-called “good government groups” into endorsing. That’s why Cuomo is opposed to allowing the Regents (owned by the Assembly, which is owned by the teachers union) to have the sole say as to who gets a charter school. He appoints the members of the SUNY Board of Trustees and he is not about to relinquish that influence to the legislative chieftains.

Of course, the members of the Legislature know full well that they need Cuomo at the top of the ticket, otherwise they will lose their marginal members. On the other hand, Cuomo knows that he can’t be perceived as being in bed with them. That means a diminution of power for the leaders and their associated lobbyists. He is telling anyone who wants to run on his coattails that they will have to pledge to support reform. Interestingly, he is painting himself not only as a candidate of reform, but as a candidate of bi-partisan reform. He is signaling to those Democrats who want to preserve the old order that he is not above making deals with their mutually exclusive Republican enemies in order to achieve reform.

Andrew has come a long way and he holds great promise. If he wants to go all the way to the White House and to uphold his anointed title as “son of Mario,” he will have to insist that apportionment be done fairly and that gerrymandering be relegated to the past. He will have to put a dent in the power of the institutionalized lobbyists. He will have to do more than the commendable talk his father was famous for, and translate his platform into actions. If I were Shelly Silver, I’d give up a lot to make Cuomo comfortable. Three-quarters of a loaf is better than none should be Silver’s thinking—otherwise he may just end up with none.

–
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

If you are recorded by the FBI saying to a legislator, “If you vote for this bill I will give you this much money,” you are guilty of bribery under the law. On the other hand, if you get money from a well-heeled lobbyist and then vote the way he wants you to but there is no announced quid pro quo, is there anything illegal about that? Of course not. That’s as American as apple pie.

The cabal running the now Democratic Senate seems to have missed the subtlety of the whole game. For years, Republicans were grabbing anything and everything that wasn’t nailed down, but doing so with taste and refinement. When Democrats finally got power, they were like the dying man who gets to the water hole and drinks too much, too fast.

Unfortunately, some of the worst characters among them have gotten their hands on power and become the “leadership.” This crew would rather hold power—even at the potential cost of their majority—than lose their access to the cookie jar.

The problem is that the Democratic Senators, having blown it and repulsed the public, are now panicking. Rather than pass the tough ethics legislation that is needed to sanitize their house, they are running in the exact opposite direction. As a result of their panic, they are looking for the money that is the heart of contemporary politics. Surely they had to recognize that putting a public menu out for all to peruse would lead to shame and dishonor. But no, they thought that the promise of filling their campaign coffers was worth the risk. Well, it wasn’t and isn’t.

Clearly, there is nothing illegal about the whole thing. After all, one of the great myths of the Albany game is that the word “access” is a sanitized version of “bribery.” Everyone now plays the game. Key lobbyists who direct money to key legislators for campaigns have immense power. Even Congressmen, seeking to have their districts preserved in the coming reapportionment, hire “connected” lobbyists to make sure that they get the best districts possible.

Democratic leaders believe that they are so invulnerable that they simply can’t lose the Senate. I am here to tell you that by their misbehavior they have almost assured that is exactly what will happen. Mark my words.

–
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

No, I’m not an elected official. I am a very dedicated Democratic activist who is really, really deep down grassroots. I am active in my Democrat club (Community Free Democrats) and I have volunteered in a wide range of campaigns. I have crossed rivers and borders, autoed, bused, trained and planed.

As with all activists, I want to know my candidates and I want them to know me, my community, my borough, city and state. In his three (whole) years in Manhattan, has Mr. Ford made any attempt to learn about New York City politics, let alone downstate and upstate? Does Mr. Ford know that there are Democrat clubs throughout the city? If he does, has he attended even one meeting? There are so many questions I would pose to Mr. Ford, but he doesn’t know me and, more important, I don’t know enough about him (I’m probably one of a very few who actually knows who Mr. Ford is).

Yes, I am one who appreciates primaries. I’ve participated in too many to count. Among the things I’d like to know about Mr. Ford is, what have you done in New York that you feel qualifies you to be our junior senator?”

Hilda B. Classon
West 86th Street

To the Editor:
I agree with “Run, Andrew, Run; Run, Harold, Run” and have to ask: Is Sen. Charles Schumer afraid of his own shadow?

You have to wonder what Schumer and Democrats are afraid of if there is a primary. Why is the New York State Democratic Party establishment in a panic over former Tennessee Sen. Harold Ford running against interim Sen. Kristen Gillibrand? There are 24 Democratic members of Congress, 32 state senators and 108 state assembly members, along with dozens of mayors and county executives who could have been potential candidates. How pathetic that the only person brave enough to offer an alternative is a political carpetbagger who has been a resident for only three years? Then again, Hillary Clinton conveniently became a New York resident in far less time before winning a senate seat.

Republicans are in worse shape going into 2010. They are still unable to find any serious challengers who can raise the millions of dollars necessary to challenge either Gillibrand, Schumer, Gov. David Paterson, Comptroller Tom DiNapoli or Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. It appears the GOP has no team to put on the field.

As the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt would say, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” Lighten up, Schumer, and allow the voters—rather than yourself—to decide who our second senator should be. Both you and the winner of any Democratic primary for either senator, governor or any statewide office will be the odds on favorite to win the general election against any Republicans. Democrats have an enrollment edge of more than two million voters and millions of dollars more in campaign funds. Republicans are David versus the Democrats’ Goliath.

Larry Penner
Great Neck, Long Island

Letters have been edited for clarity, style and brevity.

For most of her seven-year career as a nanny, Anna has been fortunate to work for two families that have paid her a decent wage for roughly nine hours of work a day. Her duties usually include taking the children for a stroll or to play dates, cooking dinner in the evening and cleaning.

But even with good employers, Anna has still been denied something as basic as proper time off. The first family that hired her, she said, never provided paid sick days. Luckily for her, they weren’t needed. In fact, she was unaware that such perks were common until she interviewed for a position with a woman—a lawyer—who promised one a month.

“There’s no right to complain,” the West African nanny said.

Mary, a 60-year-old nanny who is also from West Africa, was recently let go because of the tough economy. She received no severance from the family other than a one-day-per-week cleaning gig, though she hopes the family will help her find another nanny position. She claims European families are more inclined to give severance pay. A French family in Manhattan that hired her in the late 1990s paid out $2,000 when they had to let her go.

Earlier this year, a rally on the steps of the Capitol in Albany pushed for legislation in both the State Senate and Assembly that would protect the rights of domestic workers.

While these women talk lovingly of the families that hired them, they also hear the stories other nannies tell each other in the playground coffee klatch.

“You go to a play date or park, they talk about their boss,” says Mary, a domestic worker since 1995. “I never have the problems, but some complain.”

The complaints include simple annoyances, like being barred from eating inside the boss’ home, or having to take the children outdoors every day. But other grievances are more serious: the family goes on vacation and refuses to pay the nanny for time away, or the nannies are denied paid sick days. For people on a tight budget, this lost work adds up and can force them to look for consistent employment elsewhere.

“They can’t pay rent, can’t pay for food,” Anna said. “They’ll go find another job.”

Domestic workers are guaranteed the federal minimum wage, but there are no guidelines for working conditions and rights, and few avenues to complain. Given that most of the metropolitan area’s 200,000 domestic workers are undocumented immigrants, and with job opportunities becoming scarcer, few are willing to voice an objection.

“They have to change the law,” Mary said.

Now, a coalition of domestic workers, labor unions and human rights organizations is waiting for the State Legislature to return to Albany this fall, hoping to do just that.

Patricia, a Caribbean immigrant who has been a nanny for just more than a decade, sees great value in her job. If she is late, so is her boss.

“We make other work possible,” she says proudly.

She is currently unemployed and has worked for families in New Jersey and the West Side. Throughout her career, she has seen the vulnerability of domestic workers and even the abuse that can be inflicted—intentionally or negligently—by the families that rely on their service.

Patricia says she has been a victim of physical and verbal abuse, and was denied overtime pay and much-needed time off. And because every major labor law fails to cover domestic workers or splits hairs between those who live inside and outside the family’s home, it is near impossible to recoup money.

She became involved with Domestic Workers United, a group started in 2000 that has been lobbying Albany for a bill to provide basic labor rights to these employees.

Since the bill’s first introduction in 2004, the legislation got little traction. But last year’s Democratic takeover of the State Senate brightened prospects when Staten Island State Sen. Diane Savino, a former labor leader, became the main sponsor. However, the coup this past June and month-long stalemate that ensued have shelved progress until the next session this September, at the earliest.

Depending on which bill makes it to the governor’s desk (see box)—the meatier Senate version, the basic legislation proposed by the Assembly or a combination of the two—the law aims to drastically change working conditions for a majority of nannies in the city and surrounding suburbs. The state’s labor department and the attorney general would have enforcement power over these new laws, and could prosecute employers who stiff their nanny. Most nannies are undocumented workers and thus most vulnerable to mistreatment because they are reluctant to report abuse and risk exposing their immigration status.

Workers march on the Upper East Side on April 25.

The bill legally defines a domestic worker as a person of legal age who cares for a child or elderly person in someone’s home, so as to not inadvertently cover babysitters and minors. Rights outlined in the legislation will likely include a guarantee of at least one day off a week, sick days, a yearly weeklong vacation, paid holidays and time and a half for overtime.

“We’re not asking for more than any other worker,” Patricia said.

Actually, they are not asking for anything more than the rights already given to the small percentage of legally documented nannies who are placed through agencies (a Domestic Workers Union study found that only 16 percent of those surveyed were placed through an agency).

The New York Nanny Center, Inc., for example, screens both the families and the nannies and draws up an agreement between the two before the match is made. This agreement spells out the number of days the nanny will work with a maximum of five days a week, responsibilities, two weeks paid vacation and major holidays, plus any other conditions the nanny and family want to make.

“I think that in most licensed agencies, there is an expectation that there is a fair job description for the nanny,” said Carol Solomon, director of the New York Nanny Center, Inc. “Agencies are trying to establish what’s fair for everybody so nobody is taken advantage of in these situations.”

The change would be a significant one for non-agency nannies. Domestic Workers United released a survey that showed that the majority of nannies interviewed don’t get overtime pay, health insurance or contracts that outline their responsibilities. The survey is one of the few glimpses legislators in Albany have into this profession, because the government provides so few statistics.

“The workforce isn’t registered anywhere,” said Ai-Jen Poo, lead organizer for Domestic Workers United. “All this invisible labor…is not accounted for and makes it difficult for us to advocate for protection because it’s not even seen.”

In an April rally at the Capitol, author Barbara Ehrenreich, who documented her own undercover work in unskilled professions, held a press conference to promote the cause. Former nannies gave testimonials about their mistreatment, and some even showed legislators photographs of physical abuse victims.

“We had to educate them on exploitation and present cases to them,” said Joycelyn Gill-Campbell, a former nanny and full-time organizer with Domestic Workers United. “Give them first-hand information.”

Passing a law is only the beginning, though, as enforcing regulations that govern workers inside the home could prove problematic as well. The bills currently under consideration would have the state labor commissioner report on the feasibility of implementing paid vacation and sick days, severance pay, collective bargaining and other provisions for domestic workers. A state task force would also be created to study how to reach out to employers and nannies.

Domestic Workers United, the lead group lobbying for the law, also plans to launch an education campaign with help from the state’s justice department.

“We have to do creative outreach. We have to work with churches and synagogues,” Poo said. “The industry is very decentralized.”

Perhaps it is unfathomable for famously liberal Manhattanites to deny supporting paid time off and overtime for their nannies. There are many that do so already. While the new law would hit families in the wallet at a time when they may be evaluating if they can afford such help at all, the benefit would be clear rules on paying and treating nannies, decreasing reliance on parent blogs, forums and neighbors for second-hand, unverifiable advice. Online communities are rife with questions about paying a nanny on the books, when to give raises and compensating nannies who accompany the family on a vacation.

“There are people—Mr. and Mrs. Smith who hire a housekeeper and nanny—who feel the work they do is so vital to their family and that they deserve basic protection under the law,” Poo said. “People won’t have to go to friends or chat rooms to find out what is fair.”

*Pseudonyms were used in this article to protect the identity of nannies who are employed or looking for work.

——————–

The Bills at a Glance

State Senate Bill
• At least one day off a week; the employee can choose to work that day, but at an overtime rate
• Six paid holidays
• Seven sick days
• Five vacation days
• Employer must give a two-week notice of termination
• Imposes civil fines or imprisonment
• Allows domestic workers to sue for underpayment or lost wages; the attorney general or Department of Labor can bring a lawsuit on behalf of a domestic worker

Assembly Bill
• Overtime pay after eight hours of work per day
• At least one day off a week
• Grants disability insurance to part-time domestic workers
• Collective bargaining rights
• Gives the Department of Labor and domestic workers wage and hour enforcement powers
• Directs the Department of Labor to form a task force to educate domestic workers and employers on new law