Closing Rikers Island would be at the expense of CO, Borough, inmate safety

One of Rikers Islands nine correctional facilities will close this summer, beginning with the George Motchan Detention Center (GMDC). In a statement from our partner, Sean Riordan, Esq., “In the Mayor’s continual attempt to close Rikers Island he has announced the pending closure of GMDC. This closure can only be viewed as creating a greater risk to the personal safety of Correction Officers throughout Rikers Island. As attacks on officers have risen drastically in 2017, further crowding of existing facilities will create untold dangers for officers in 2018 and beyond. ‘The “re-thinking’ of the city’s jail system should not be done at the expense of officer safety.”

There are more than a couple of reasons why closing the Correction Facility would not do corrections officers, inmates, or the Boroughs any good:

1) Several Borough officials and waves of community members have come out in opposition against jails being built in the boroughs. An article linked below in The Queens Gazette notes that there was potential for a new jail that would be built within proximity to several schools in the Bronx.

2) With the expanse of over 400 acres and 9 buildings that is Rikers Island, many are saying that the proposed replacement buildings in the Boroughs could not house anywhere close to the reduction goal of 5,000 inmates. An alternative is to renovate the facilities. These same renovations were cited as reasons to close the jails, as proposed in the past by NYS Chief Justice Jonathan Lippman.

3) Downsizing has already been positively correlated to spikes in violence, according to statistics from 2017. This has to lead one to ask, what would even further downsizing do?

In the article on, “Former New York State Chief Justice Jonathan Lippman led a study performed by the Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform Commissioners that determined the reasons for closing Rikers Island are as follows: dilapidated buildings; lack of visitor access to the facility for inmates’ family members; significant time and resources needed to ferry individuals to and from the courts; and the lack of private, safe spaces to provide detainees with effective on-site programming.” These are all things that could take place without the displacement of inmates and Corrections Officers and the raising of new jails throughout boroughs.

With the staggering budget needed to rehouse inmates and rebuild new jails, renovations could take place, as Queens Councilmen Bob Holden suggested after a tour of Rikers according to the Queens Gazette. As cited on, “…the combined capacity of the borough jails is estimated to be 2,300, so Holden believes the nearly $11 billion cost of renovating and expanding them would be too high.” That combined capacity is less than half of the Mayor’s reduction goal. Keeping that same budget within Rikers Island to update it would be a significantly more productive, and by all accounts safer, allocation of money and time.

An article on NY Post notes that most recently, Mayor de Blasio is suing Governor Cuomo over an order that forces an expedited closure of the Robert N. Donovan Detention Center (RNDC). Housing primarily teenagers, closing RNDC could displace them into facilities with adults, removing them from classroom settings within the RNDC. These same programs have had a proven, positive effect on inmates. Shortly after that information was released, another CO was slashed in the face; this comes just a few weeks after the orchestrated attack on Officer Jean Souffrant.


NYC to Close One Jail on Rikers Island This Summer

First Rikers Island jail to close in summer as part of city’s 10-year plan to shut down the complex

Rikers Island Shutdown Meeting Draws Large Crowd

‘There are no advantages’ to closing Rikers Island, two Queens officials say at prison panel

De Blasio sues to block Cuomo from closing Rikers facility

Correction officer slashed by inmate at Rikers hours after public hearing about violence against employees

FDNY EMS Gears Up, Private Ambulances Scale Down

Our citys’ FDNY saw this coming from miles away, according to the Chief Leader article linked below:

“It was back during the Giuliani administration that the city opened the door for the private carriers. Mayor Rudy Giuliani also took the Emergency Medical Service function away from the City’s Health + Hospitals and merged it with the FDNY.”

“In the years since Mr. Giuliani opened the door to the city relying on private carriers for 911 emergency medical calls, the leadership of DC 37’s Local 2507 and Local 3621, which represent the FDNY EMS workforce, has warned the City Council that such a reliance could create a sudden gap in coverage if a private carrier in the 911 network went bankrupt.”

After private ambulance provider TransCare went bankrupt in February 2016, the de Blasio administration recently approved funding for two extra ambulances and a team of 15 extra EMT’s, as well as two EMS pilot programs to be launched in the coming months. In an article on PIX 11, TransCare will be pulling nearly 30 ambulances off the streets of Manhattan and The Bronx, leaving over 81 shifts vacant. As the private provider was responding to less and less calls, leading to a 10% decrease in a one-year span, this didn’t come as a surprise to FDNY officials.

This comes in the wake of the FDNY’s gator utility vehicles-small, nimble vehicles implemented to lower response times to medical emergencies in high-traffic areas, like Times Square. Where larger ambulances couldn’t fit, the gator utility vehicles did and had all the necessary equipment for medical emergencies. In a continued effort to innovate and improve response times, particularly in The Bronx, the FDNY will deploy “fly cars” in the area. These will be support SUV’s to lead ambulances with a paramedic on board for emergencies in The Bronx.


FDNY prepared to pick up slack after private ambulance company files for bankruptcy

Private Ambulances Disappear, So 911 Calls Fall to EMS

Fire Department Finds a Way Around Times Square Traffic for Medical Emergencies

City Hall, FDNY in Talks Over Ambulances

Construction Industry needs Scaffold Law

Changes to the Scaffold Law have been at the crux of recent discussions in the construction industry. In New York, 2016 and 2015 were statistically the deadliest years for construction workers-dozens of articles recording deaths due to improper equipment were published. In late 2017, two workers fell to their deaths during the same day on separate projects in the city.

Many businesses are citing unnecessary regulations on businesses, higher insurance costs for businesses, and higher taxes as reasons not to proceed with the updates to the Scaffold Law. However, an article recently published stated that this was one of a number of myths surrounding the Scaffold Law. One of the most damning points listed is that most people don’t actually know what construction insurance premiums look like. In the article linked above, Harry Bronson from the New York State Assembly simply puts:

“Third, the facts about insurance premiums. We don’t have them because insurers won’t disclose them. Insurance companies are in the business of risk analysis based on data. Policy decisions should be made based on data. It is disturbing that insurance carriers refuse to disclose the truth about construction liability insurance premiums. Indeed, if the Scaffold Safety Law were legitimately a financial burden, then one would think that insurers would be eager to validate their position and put the information forward.”

While some are squabbling about red tape, costs, and taxes, NYCOSH published a report called The Deadly Skyline. The report appropriately starts with an in Memoriam section for those who were killed due to falls at sites, listing names, ages and locations. The youngest on the list was 19. One would think even those opposing the bill can agree, worker safety is priceless. The precursor to this was when a number of NYCOSH reports related construction injuries and fatalities to union or non-union work sites. These NYCOSH reports showed a greater likelihood to get injured on a non-union project, and that Latino workers’ had a greater likelihood for wage theft and of dying on a work site.

NYCOSH puts forth a number of suggestions as additions to the Scaffold Law in the report:

“In response to the health and safety crisis facing New York’s construction workers, NYCOSH has a series of recommendations. NYCOSH continues its call to protect the Scaffold Safety Law, which grants injured construction workers who fall on the job the right to sue an employer who puts their life in danger. NYCOSH is also calling for new legislation to increase penalties for companies that willingly violate the law and cause a worker fatality, and to revoke the licenses of criminal contractors who were convicted of felonies in the case of a worker death. Finally, NYCOSH recommends increased training for workers, like apprenticeship programs on large construction projects, OSHA 10s on all construction sites, and licensing for elevator construction workers.”

There is no report that could be made that would invalidate the need to not only uphold the Scaffold Law, but to also add NYCOSH’s suggestions to the legislation. When the safety and lives of workers are at risk, businesses should do what they can to protect them. This includes longer training, safer work sites, and generally better employer practices amongst the construction industry.


Letter: NY Scaffold Law protects construction workers

OUR VIEW: Scaffold Law hurts businesses in New York

Misinformation muddies discussion about Scaffold Safety Law

Deadly Skyline: An Annual Report on Construction Fatalities in New York State

City Council can protect NYC workers from construction accidents by mandating better training

NYC official urges city to classify construction site accidents as union or nonunion

EXCLUSIVE: NYC urged to release info on construction accidents to show whether union jobs are safer

FDNY opposes plan to remodel WTC Health Program

The FDNY has come out in opposition to a new plan that would remodel the WTC Health Program, a detail hidden in the upcoming Federal Budget for 2019. As it stands, the WTC Health Program is a part of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, which is a part of the Center for Disease Control.

“The budget carves NIOSH out of the CDC and places it within the National Institutes of Health, but leaves the WTC Health Program within the CDC. But NIOSH and the WTC Health Program share many employees — and those workers would move with NIOSH, critics of the plan say.”, notes an article written on, linked below.

It would remove a health program made for those who worked during a national emergency from an institution that specializes in occupational health. The statistic for denied disability claims is staggering, and the need for the stability of these kind of benefits goes without saying. According to the CDC, the age bracket effected with the highest rate of enrollment in this program were first responders between 45 and 64-or, to put it more clearly, those closest to retirement who are already in need of benefits. There has already been a greatly documented history of first responders having difficulty obtaining disability benefits from the City Retirement System. Restructuring this program would only exacerbate the problems that already exist.

According to an article posted about this same change on The Chief Leader, not only would this budget change be “inconsistent with the legislation mandated by the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2015”, but it is also regarded as a “blueprint for radically squeezing domestic spending on safety-net programs and things like occupational health.”

The shifting of leadership and resources would drastically change the way that those protected under this health program receive medical benefits, and what medical care they would receive as well.

FDNY Union Blasts Trump Budget for WTC Health Proposal

Predict Problems for First-Responders

Jon Stewart, lawmakers slam Mulvaney proposal on 9/11 health program

Why we need to Protect our unions from Janus

A Supreme Court case with a 40-year precedent has been brought back to the future. On February 26th, the Supreme Court began hearings on Janus vs. AFSCME and the constitutionality of compulsory Fair Share fees. These fees are paid by non-union employees who work in unionized jobs but are still represented by the union during contract negotiations and collective bargaining. The 1977 precursor to this, Abood vs. Detroit Board of Education, determined that fees by non-union members could not be used for political purposes. Janus’ response to this is that unions are inherently political due to the activities of negotiating, bargaining, and the general goings-on that give union employees a voice in their workplace. Many expect the case to have a verdict by June. On top of that similar cases in the past have shown an unfavorable pattern for unions, noted in an article on USA Today:

“The court has ruled 7-2, 5-4 and 4-4 on three similar cases in the past six years, eating away at that 1977 decision without overruling it entirely. In 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia’s death a month after oral argument denied conservatives their fifth vote — a vote Justice Neil Gorsuch is widely expected to provide.”

While opponents of the law are citing free speech as the main issue at hand, those supporting the law are drawing on the fact that many of the opponents are those who want to see a complete deregulation of business and workers rights.

New York is the most unionized state in the U.S., with hundreds of unions representing thousands of those who make our lives livable. Roughly 70% of public employees in New York belong to a union. Firefighters, police officers, correction officers, nurses, bus drivers, train operators, engineers, sanitation workers-the list is virtually endless. According to an article written in New York Times, 27% of federal employees belong to a union. On February 24th, dubbed Working Peoples Day of Action, two of New York’s leaders and thousands of union members protested and made their position clear-they will not stand to have Janus overturned.

Many unions are saying that overturning Janus would pull funding away from the very things that make unions so important. Union’s provide the opportunity for each employee to have their voice heard, and heard loud. The expected decision of this would hinder the chance for employees to have a say in their work place, their administration, wages, and more. They provide the opportunity for a say in pensions, health care-things that are imperative to the families of union employees. Dismantling the financial structure of such an important force would be detrimental to union employees, union families, and the city and state systems that unions work for.


Cuomo, de Blasio rally with unions over pending court ruling

Massive Labor-Rights Rally Set for Feb. 24

Supreme Court may deal major blow to labor unions

Federal Unions Show How to Survive Even Without Agency Fees

A Supreme Court Showdown Could Shrink Unions’ Power