Staff Reports
Albany quietly pulled a switcheroo this year. What started as a sensible bill to make government use of artificial intelligence more transparent has been rewritten into a statewide shield for public‑sector jobs. The February 2026 chapter amendment to the LOADinG framework kept the “no one loses a job” language and ditched most of the accountability rules — and that matters a lot for New York City’s budget and for taxpayers who expect better government, not guaranteed sinecures.
What Albany actually did
The LOADinG Act began as an AI‑governance bill in 2023 meant to force impact assessments and human review when agencies use automated systems. After three rounds of chapter amendments, lawmakers removed many of those governance provisions and preserved — then broadened — strong labor protections. The amended text bars the use of AI systems in ways that would cause “discharge, displacement or loss of position, including partial displacement such as a reduction in hours, wages, or employment benefits,” or the “transfer of existing duties and functions currently performed by employees.” Crucially, the February 2026 change extended those protections to counties, cities, towns, villages, and school districts — i.e., nearly every public employer in New York. The job‑protection language is set to remain in effect unless renewed before its July 2028 sunset.
Why this is a problem for New York City’s budget
Mayor Zohran Mamdani is scrambling to close a multibillion‑dollar gap, but the city won’t get far if it’s barred from using AI to reorganize work. New York City faces an out‑year shortfall measured in the billions; the mayor’s touted $100 million in two‑year school contract savings is a rounding error compared with the hole. The amended law doesn’t stop the city from buying software — it stops the city from using it where it would actually save money: automating repetitive intake, triage, first‑drafting, record review and other high‑volume tasks. The predictable result is perverse: agencies will buy the tools, train staff, and then leave workflows intact because touching a unionized duty invites grievance and costly legal fights. That’s not modernization; it’s a taxpayer subsidy for resistance to change.
Who benefits — and who pays
Organized labor got what it wanted: a statutory floor that protects incumbents and creates a built‑in basis for grievances whenever automation even nudges a covered job. The state AFL‑CIO and public‑university unions cheered the move, and Albany’s dealmaking gave them a durable advantage. Meanwhile, city residents pay the bill through higher costs, slower services, and fewer efficiency gains. Lawmakers traded transparency and accountability for job insurance — and they did so at the expense of the very public the original bill claimed to protect.
How to fix it
There are common‑sense fixes that preserve workers’ rights without stranding the city in the past. Albany should restore the governance requirements it removed, narrow the statute’s definitions so “displacement” isn’t a catch‑all, and carve a practical exception for productivity projects that augment rather than eliminate core public services. City Hall should demand a legal opinion and seek a carve‑out or an aggressive pilot‑program waiver so it can pursue real savings while bargaining in good faith. If Albany won’t act, New York City should press the case publicly: voters deserve to know who blocked smarter government and why. We shouldn’t mortgage the city’s finances to guarantee bureaucrats’ immunity from change — that’s not progress, it’s protectionism in a new suit.
