The Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection heard hours of testimony on Intro 13-91, the Allan Etienne Safety and Security Act, which would set minimum pay and benefit standards and require expanded training for private security guards while creating a dedicated security-guard advocate in the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection.

Chair Julie Menon opened the hearing by framing the bill as a response to risks faced by security officers after the July 28 Midtown shooting that killed security guard Alon Etienne and called for a moment of silence. “Security guards play an absolutely critical role as a first line of defense,” Menon said, and the bill would “educate security guard employers and workers about their obligations and their rights.”

Supporters included union leaders and front-line officers who described low pay, high turnover and limited access to health care. Manny Passreich, president of SEIU 32BJ, told the committee the security industry suffers from “a 77% annual turnover rate,” and that the bill would “professionalize the workforce” by raising pay and training standards. Rachel Paoli, a close friend and partner of Alon Etienne, described his final actions during the July 28 shooting and urged the council to pass legislation that she said would honor his legacy.

Labor and policy researchers presented data intended to show the scale of the problem. Lauren Melodia, an economist at The New School, testified there are roughly 82,000 private security officers in New York City and that many qualify as working poor. Enrique Lopez Lira of the UC Berkeley Labor Center said the median hourly wage for city security guards is about $20.29 and reported a 74% turnover rate in 2024; he and other witnesses cited racial and gender wage gaps within the occupation.

Several witnesses urged the committee to supplement existing state licensing and training requirements with city-specific standards tailored to New York’s size and threat environment. Panelists described current training as an eight-hour prehire course, a 16-hour on-the-job requirement and an eight-hour annual refresher; proponents said additional, city-specific modules on first aid, de-escalation and mental-health response would better prepare guards for the range of incidents they face.

Industry groups and some employers countered that the bill duplicates state training and licensing, could intrude on fields regulated by state law and would impose new costs on clients and contractors. Steve Amatay of the National Association of Security Companies said much of the proposed training is already provided under state law, client contracts and collective bargaining agreements and cautioned against expanding obligations that, he argued, could create liability risks.

Several hotel and hospitality representatives asked for clarity on how the law would interact with existing collective bargaining agreements and the Safe Hotels framework; they proposed carve-outs or implementation timelines to avoid duplication of required training or conflicts with employer-imposed probationary periods.

Council members and many front-line speakers emphasized immediate needs: better wages so officers can afford housing and medical care; more consistent, city-focused training; and a mechanism for workers to report violations. Multiple security officers said low pay forced them to work multiple jobs, and that better compensation and benefits would improve retention and public safety by keeping experienced officers on the job.

The hearing produced no formal vote. Committee members repeatedly framed the measure as a response to public-safety concerns tied to the Etienne shooting and said they would continue work on the legislation.

The committee also took later testimony on unrelated vendor licensing bills, which several speakers asked the council to advance; committee leaders closed the hearing by thanking participants and reaffirming the goal of moving legislation that honors Alon Etienne’s service.