NY corrections officers want Dem prison-reform repeal, say deal ending strike 'slap in the face'
New York officials have reached an agreement to end a two-week unsanctioned strike by correctional officers over Democrat-backed prison reforms that they say have made conditions "unsafe," but a GOP lawmaker argued the deal fails to address "the basics of what people are angry about."
"The things that they're most upset about are things that are the subject of legislation," Republican state Sen. Daniel Stec told Fox News Digital in an interview Friday.
The mediated deal was reached late Thursday between the New York State Correctional Officers, the government-affiliated corrections officers union, Police Benevolent Association (NYSCOPBA) and the state's Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS).
However, since some 15,000 correction workers have been on a "wildcat strike," they were not present during negotiations, and a spokesperson for the striking workers told CBS the deal does not go far enough.
"The issues have always been there," Stec said. "Officer safety mandated overtime, some of these guys are working so much overtime that they're never home, and it's thrust upon them. On top of that, during the nature of their job, they're working, sometimes they are forced to work 24 or more hours consecutively."
At issue is a piece of prison reform legislation, the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (HALT), that strikers want repealed. The law restricts solitary confinement and instead focuses on other rehabilitation methods, but since it went into effect in 2022, GOP lawmakers, citing department stats, say it has led to a 169% increase in inmate-on-inmate assaults, a 76% increase in inmate-on-staff assaults and a 32% jump in contraband cases.
"She doesn't care, she cares about the inmates and their rights. [The deal] is a slap in every officer's face."
Stec said "it's not safe for the officers, it's not safe inside for anybody" and said "this has been pointed out to the administration time and time again since before they put HALT into effect."
One mom of a corrections officer told Fox News Digital on Friday, "These are things that our governor doesn't care about."
"She doesn't care, she cares about the inmates and their rights," she said. "[The deal] is a slap in every officer's face."
Upon the released agreement, Gov. Kathy Hochul said in part, "My top priority is the safety of all New Yorkers, and for the past 11 days, I have deployed every possible State resource to protect the well-being of correction officers, the incarcerated population and local communities across New York."
"Working with a mediator, we have reached a consent award to address many of the concerns raised by correction officers, put DOCCS back on the path to safe operations, respect the rights of incarcerated individuals and prevent future unsanctioned work stoppages," she said.
In a letter alongside the agreement, Mediator Martin F. Scheinman proposed a binding "Consent Award" that would formalize agreements reached in mediation and be enforceable by court order. He noted the enforcement of such an agreement is complicated by a temporary restraining order, which renders judicial enforcement difficult while the strike continues. He said the Consent Award will only be signed once the court order is complied with.
"I will not issue a CONSENT AWARD I believe will be unenforceable judicially," Scheinman wrote.
The mediation agreement temporarily suspends key provisions of the HALT Act for 90 days, with a review by the DOCCS commissioner after 30 days to determine if the suspension should continue. Following the suspension, a "circuit breaker" staffing metric will be implemented to prevent mandatory 24-hour overtime shifts, requiring facility adjustments if staffing falls below 70%.
The agreement also says protesting officers will be shielded from disciplinary action if they return to work by March 1, but those involved in illegal activities will face penalties. Other provisions include pay increases, referral bonuses, mental health support and security screening to curtail drugs in the prison mail system.
Additionally, the National Guard – which Hochul requested after thousands of officers did not show up to work – will remain onsite.
Stec said corrections officers see the deal as something the state is seeking to "shovel money at."
"In reading the agreement, there's a lot of discussion in there about overtime and money, and people are always going to talk about money, but the impetus to this has always been about their safety," he said.
Beginning on Feb. 17, two officers from the New York Department of Corrections began striking over "unsafe" conditions in their facilities, and support quickly cascaded across 38 of the state's 42 prisons, leading to thousands of workers participating in the strike without union approval, which is prohibited under New York law.
Days before the strike, officials at the Collins Correctional Facility in Erie County implemented a lockdown following an inmate uprising.
Hochul threatened legal action earlier this week against striking correctional officers, announcing during a press conference that proceedings have commenced against nearly 400 officers, with New York State Police serving restraining orders to 380 individuals. Hochul said officers remaining on strike are considered absent without leave (AWOL), resulting in the loss of state health benefits and legal representation previously provided by their union.
"They know they are in violation of the New York State Taylor law," Hochul said during the press conferece. "They are also in violation of a temporary restraining order to return to work. We offered an amnesty period where they could go back to work, no questions asked."
Fox News Digital has reached out to Hochul's office and the NYSCOPBA for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
8 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Florida agency tells newspaper to halt reporting angle on foundation associated with governor's wife
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Florida's child welfare agency sent a letter to a Florida newspaper telling it to 'cease and desist' its reporting on foster families for a story about a nonprofit associated with Gov. Ron DeSantis' wife that is the subject of an investigation. The Orlando Sentinel received the letter on Friday from the state Department of Children and Families, whose top official is appointed by the governor. The letter claimed that the newspaper's Tallahassee reporter had used threats to coerce foster families into making negative statements about the Hope Florida Foundation when he contacted them about the welfare nonprofit behind the signature initiative of Casey DeSantis, Florida's first lady. 'Cease and desist the above-described intimidation of these families,' the DCF letter said. Orlando Sentinel Executive Editor Roger Simmons said the agency's characterization of the reporter's conduct was 'completely false.' The yet-to-be-published story was looking into grants distributed by Hope Florida to organizations, families and individuals, according to the Sentinel. 'We stand by our stories and reject the state's attempt to chill free speech and encroach on our First Amendment right to report on an important issue,' Simmons said in an email. DCF on Monday didn't provide an immediate response to an inquiry about the letter. DCF posted the cease-and-desist letter on social media Friday, saying Hope Florida had supported foster families with donations to repair their homes following last year's hurricanes. The letter is attempting to intimidate the Sentinel from publishing what may be unflattering news about Hope Florida in what is known as prior restraint, and prior restraint efforts typically are unconstitutional, said Clay Calvert, a law professor emeritus at the University of Florida and nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. If he were the Sentinel's attorney, Calvert said, he would tell the agency 'to go pound sand.' 'DCF can send all the cease and desist letters it wants, but the Sentinel isn't obligated to follow any of them,' he said. 'This is really trying to silence any negative coverage before it comes out.' Prosecutors in Tallahassee have opened an investigation related to the Hope Florida Foundation. A public records custodian in the office of Second Judicial Circuit State Attorney Jack Campbell confirmed the existence of 'an open, on-going investigation' last month in response to a records request from The Associated Press. The investigation was first reported by the Miami Herald/Tampa Bay Times. Republican state lawmakers in DeSantis' own party have been scrutinizing Hope Florida and its nonprofit foundation, which gave $10 million from a state Medicaid settlement to two nonprofits. Those groups in turn gave millions to a political committee, chaired by DeSantis' then-chief of staff, that campaigned against a failed referendum on recreational marijuana. In April, Republican state Rep. Alex Andrade wrapped up the investigation he had been spearheading into Hope Florida, saying he would leave the rest of the inquiry to 'the FBI and Department of Justice,' though there is no public evidence that either is doing so. Andrade has alleged that the flow of funds from the foundation to the nonprofits and on to the political committees amounts to 'conspiracy to commit money laundering and wire fraud.' The governor has dismissed the investigation of Hope Florida as a politically motivated smear against his wife, whom he's floated as his potential successor when he terms out in 2026. ___ Follow Mike Schneider on the social platform Bluesky: @
Fox News
13 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump gives blunt response to Newsom daring Homan to arrest him: 'I would'
President Donald Trump suggested he would be willing to arrest California Gov. Gavin Newsom if his administration obstructs ICE operations amid riots in Los Angeles on Monday. Trump made the statement in a brief exchange with reporters after disembarking from Marine One outside the White House. Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy asked Trump whether he though Border Czar Tom Homan should take up Newsom on his dare to come arrest him. "He's daring Tom Homan to come and arrest him. Should he do it?" Doocy asked. "I would do it I were Tom," Trump responded. "I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity. But I do think it would be a great thing. He's done a terrible job. I like Gavin Newsom. He's a nice guy, but he's grossly incompetent. Everybody knows." Trump went on to state his belief that many of the rioters and protesters in Los Angeles are professional agitators rather than real protesters. "The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists. They're bad people. They should be in jail," Trump said. Newsom swiftly responded to Trump's comments in a post on social media. "The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor," Newsom wrote. "This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism." Homan told "Fox & Friends" earlier on Monday that he had told an NBC reporter that "no one's above the law," but there was no discussion about arresting Newsom at that time. "What we discussed was for those protesters that crossed the line… you can protest, you get your First Amendment rights… But when you cross that line, you put hands on an ICE officer, or you destroy property, or I'd say that you impede law enforcement, or you're knowingly harboring and concealing an illegal alien… that's a crime, and the Trump administration is not going to tolerate it," he said. "Then the reporter asked me, well, could Governor Newsom or Mayor Bass be arrested? I said, 'Well, no one's above the law. If they cross the line and commit a crime, absolutely they can,' so there was no discussion about arresting Newsom." Homan lambasted the blue state's response to riots against the Trump administration's immigration raids that rocked Los Angeles over the weekend, with some protesters throwing projectiles at law enforcement and torching American flags and cars. Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the city in an effort to quell some of the unrest, much to the dismay of Democratic officials.
Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump's troop deployment is a warning sign for what comes next, legal scholars fear
President Donald Trump's deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles is stretching the legal limits of how the military can be used to enforce domestic laws on American streets, constitutional law experts say. Trump, for now, has given the troops a limited mission: protecting federal immigration agents and buildings amid a wave of street protests against the administration's mass deportation policies. To justify the deployment, Trump cited a provision of federal law that allows the president to use the National Guard to quell domestic unrest. But Trump's stated rationale, legal scholars say, appears to be a flimsy and even contrived basis for such a rare and dramatic step. The real purpose, they worry, may be to amass more power over blue states that have resisted Trump's deportation agenda. And the effect, whether intentional or not, may be to inflame the tension in L.A., potentially leading to a vicious cycle in which Trump calls up even more troops or broadens their mission. 'It does appear to be largely pretextual, or at least motivated more by politics than on-the-ground need,' said Chris Mirasolo, a national security law professor at the University of Houston. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the deployment 'unlawful' and said he would sue Monday. 'This is about authoritarian tendencies. This is about command and control. This is about power. This is about ego,' Newsom, a Democrat, said Sunday on MSNBC. 'This is a consistent pattern.' At issue is the president's authority to deploy the military for domestic purposes. A federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, generally bars the president from using federal troops — the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Space Force — to enforce domestic laws. But there are exceptional circumstances when the president can use troops domestically. The most prominent exception is the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy the military to suppress insurrections, 'domestic violence' or conspiracies that undermine constitutional rights or federal laws. At the end of Trump's first term, some of his most ardent supporters urged and expected him to invoke the Insurrection Act to push aside state election authorities and essentially void the 2020 presidential election results, although he never did so. During his 2024 campaign, he said he would invoke the act to subdue unrest if reelected. But so far, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead, in a Saturday order, he cited a different statutory provision: a terse section of the U.S. code that allows the president to use the National Guard — but not any other military forces — to suppress the 'danger of a rebellion' or to 'execute' federal laws when 'regular forces' are unable to do so. Notably, his order did not outright declare the unrest in L.A. to be a 'rebellion,' but suggested it was moving in that direction. 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,' the order said. California authorities and Trump critics say that local law enforcement was effectively managing the L.A. protests. And despite the National Guard's purportedly defensive role of protecting federal property and personnel, some experts see the deployment as throwing a lit match into a tinderbox. If the troops are drawn into violent confrontations, Trump might use the clashes as justification for invoking the Insurrection Act, which would pave the way for active-duty military forces to take more aggressive actions to subdue protesters and engage in law enforcement. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday said Marines could be mobilized to L.A. if unrest continues, writing in a post on X that the troops 'are on high alert.' 'The laws in this area are somewhat unsettled and untested,' said Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor who served as a counselor to the undersecretary of defense for policy under President Barack Obama. 'Federalizing Guard troops in this situation — and raising the specter of also sending in active duty military personnel — is a political stunt, and a dangerous one.' Experts are also eyeing whether the Guard members accompany immigration authorities when they venture away from federal buildings — a move that could signal a willingness to use troops to actively aid immigration enforcement, rather than simply protect agents from protesters. Trump has fueled the fears of further escalation, actively commenting on the protests while attacking the state's response. 'Looking really bad in L.A.,' he posted early Monday morning, shortly after midnight. 'BRING IN THE TROOPS.' He also called for immediate arrests of any protesters wearing masks and repeatedly described them as 'insurrectionists.' However, when asked by reporters Sunday if the violence amounted to an insurrection, Trump said no. On Monday, Trump also endorsed the idea of arresting Newsom. Trump is not the first president to deploy the military over a governor's objection. But it's the first time since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson ordered troops to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama. President Dwight Eisenhower similarly overrode objections from Alabama's governor, deploying troops to help enforce the desegregation of public schools. When presidents view state and local authorities as being ineffective or recalcitrant, those steps may be justified, some experts say. 'Usually the President calls out the troops with the cooperation of the governor, which happened in LA itself during the Rodney King riots,' said John Yoo, a legal counselor to President George W. Bush. 'But there have been times when governors have been tragically slow, as during Hurricane Katrina, or actually resistant to federal policy, as with desegregation, or, arguably, in this case. ' Trump, when speaking about the decision with reporters Sunday, said he warned Newsom a few days earlier of the possibility. 'I did call him the other night,' Trump said. 'I said you've got to take care of this, otherwise I'm sending in the troops.' Newsom has railed against Trump's unilateral action, saying it will inflame rather than ease tensions on the streets and that state and local law enforcement were appropriately responding to the unrest outside federal buildings. Newsom got backup from Democratic governors across the country, who signed a letter calling Trump's National Guard deployment an 'alarming abuse of power.' 'The military appears to be clashing with protesters in the streets of our country. That's not supposed to happen,' said Elizabeth Goitein, a national security law expert at New York University's Brennan Center. 'It's such a dangerous situation. It's dangerous for liberty. It's dangerous for democracy.' The promised lawsuit from California will set up yet another high-stakes courtroom test of Trump's multifaceted bid to expand executive power in his second term. The last major political fight over the president's powers to call up the National Guard in an emergency came almost two decades ago, following a decision by President George W. Bush not to activate the National Guard to restore order in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Bush reportedly balked at calling up the National Guard due to the objection of Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and uncertainty over the legality of the president doing so without her consent. In response, Congress passed an appropriations rider in 2007 that explicitly granted the president that authority during 'a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or Incident' and in reaction to an 'insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.' While some legal experts said the measure simply reiterated existing law, an unusually broad coalition — including all 50 U.S. governors — called for repeal of the amendment. And the following year, Congress did repeal it, allowing the law to revert to language in place since the 1950s.
