Scaffold Law: Langworthy's Bill Would Strip Worker Fall Protections on Federally Funded Sites — Post Frames It Only as a Cost Issue
Why this matters in NY-23
Construction is a significant employer across NY-23’s rural and small-city economies. New York’s Scaffold Law — Labor Law §240 — has governed worker fall liability since 1885 and is the primary legal mechanism protecting construction workers injured in gravity-related accidents on job sites. Langworthy’s Infrastructure Expansion Act would eliminate that protection on any project receiving federal funds. The post and the op-ed it shares frame this entirely as a government savings question. This entry examines what the law does and what repeal would mean for workers.
Statement
Source: Facebook Post, May 20, 2026 Reported by: Washington Examiner
Source: Congressman Nick Langworthy Facebook, May 20, 2026
Langworthy shared a Washington Examiner op-ed with the pull quote:
“A promising solution is on the table, and Congress has an immediate way to act. Congressman Nick Langworthy’s (R-NY) Infrastructure Expansion Act would introduce sanity by applying preemption to any project in New York that received federal funding. In other words, when Washington is paying the bill, New York’s outdated absolute liability standard would not apply.”
What the Scaffold Law Actually Does
New York Labor Law §240 — commonly called the Scaffold Law — has been in effect since 1885. It imposes absolute liability on property owners and general contractors when workers are injured in gravity-related accidents: falls from ladders, scaffolds, roofs, or floor openings; being struck by falling objects.
“Absolute liability” means the employer is liable regardless of whether the worker contributed to the accident. New York is the only state that applies this standard. All 49 other states use comparative negligence — where liability is divided based on each party’s share of fault.
The Scaffold Law covers all construction workers on affected projects — union and non-union, documented and undocumented. Falls from height are the leading cause of construction worker fatalities in the United States. The law’s absolute liability standard creates a strong financial incentive for employers to provide fall protection equipment and enforce safety protocols, because any failure that results in a worker injury creates full employer liability.
What the Infrastructure Expansion Act Would Do
Bill: H.R. 3548, 119th Congress Introduced by: Rep. Nick Langworthy Status: Introduced; not passed
The bill would preempt New York’s Scaffold Law for any construction project that receives federal funding. On those projects, New York’s absolute liability standard would be replaced by comparative negligence — the same standard used in other states. A worker who is injured because their employer failed to provide a safety harness could have their recovery reduced based on their own share of fault.
What this changes for workers: Under current law, a worker who falls from an unsecured scaffold on a federally funded road project can recover full damages. Under H.R. 3548, that worker’s damages could be reduced if the contractor argues the worker was partially at fault — regardless of whether proper equipment was provided.
The Cost Argument
Supporters of Scaffold Law reform, including the “Build More New York” coalition of approximately 50 business groups, cite significant cost estimates:
- The Scaffold Law adds an estimated 5–10% to total construction costs in New York
- New York insurance costs for contractors: 8–10% of project costs, vs. 2–4% in comparative negligence states
- Langworthy’s office projects the Infrastructure Expansion Act would save $2+ billion in federal spending over ten years on federally funded projects
These cost estimates reflect real insurance premium differentials. Whether the savings would materialize as projected depends on how contractors respond to reduced liability exposure.
What the cost argument omits: The higher insurance premiums in New York exist because the liability is real — workers do fall, and when they do, under absolute liability, the costs are borne by employers rather than by injured workers or publicly funded programs. Reducing employer liability does not eliminate the cost of injuries; it shifts who bears it.
Who Opposes the Bill
The Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, representing construction unions, opposes the Infrastructure Expansion Act. Council President Gary LaBarbera has argued the bill simultaneously attacks worker safety protections and state sovereignty over labor law — using federal funding as leverage to override a state standard that has protected workers for 140 years.
No House vote has occurred on H.R. 3548.
Assessment
Verdict: MISSING CONTEXT
Langworthy’s post and the Washington Examiner op-ed it shares frame the Infrastructure Expansion Act entirely as a fiscal issue: it would “save tax dollars” by eliminating New York’s “outdated absolute liability standard.” The post does not mention that the standard being eliminated is a 140-year-old worker fall protection law, that the “cost savings” come from shifting injury liability from employers to workers, or that construction unions — representing the workers most directly affected — oppose the bill. The cost estimates cited are real but incomplete without the worker-safety context the post omits.
Sources
- NY Labor Law §240 — full text
- Washington Examiner op-ed: Save tax dollars by preempting New York’s Scaffold Law — May 2026 — archive pending
- H.R. 3548 — Infrastructure Expansion Act, 119th Congress — archive pending
- Langworthy press release: Infrastructure Expansion Act introduction — archive pending
- Finger Lakes 1: Scaffold Law reform and infrastructure bill analysis — archive pending
- Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York — opposition statement — archive pending