On Feb. 25, when the Brooklyn Museum held a gala to celebrate its 200th anniversary, its workers formed a picket line outside to protest impending job cuts. Wealthy patrons in evening gowns and tuxedos made their way past hundreds of museum employees, fellow union members and workers from other Brooklyn institutions rallying in solidarity.
“Most of us could work at any cultural institution, but we choose to work here,” Liz St. George, an assistant curator of decorative arts who was one of the 47 workers slated to lose their jobs, told the crowd. “I do it because of the people I work with, and I’m here today standing shoulder to shoulder with you, fighting for no layoffs.”
Late on the night of March 9, the day the layoffs were supposed to begin, the museum reached an agreement with the workers’ two unions, District Council 37 Local 1502 and United Auto Workers Local 2110, to offer “a voluntary separation package” instead. The package offers those who quit three weeks’ severance pay for every year of service, a letter of recommendation from management and COBRA health insurance paid for by the museum for up to four months. (To keep coverage after that, they would have to pay the full premium themselves.)
forward with layoffs without consulting the unions only further inflamed tensions.
The 47 workers — nearly 10% of the staff of over 500 — have until March 19 to take the offer.
“We secured an agreement that is fair and results in no layoffs for our members,” DC 37 Executive Director Henry Garrido said in the union’s announcement. “We will continue pushing for sustainable funding for the city’s cultural institutions.”
The planned layoffs were announced on Feb. 7, with curators, conservators, security guards, assistants and retail staff on the list. The museum cited a $10 million budget deficit, with Director Anne Pasternak framing the layoffs as an unfortunate but necessary measure to keep the institution financially stable.
‘Our members are paying the price for the mistakes of management,’ said Local 2110 Organizing Director Maida Rosenstein.
Museum workers saw it differently. They pointed to mismanagement and lavish spending — millions of dollars spent on rebranding, costly renovations, outside consultants, and a brand-new restaurant — while staff remained overworked and underpaid over the past two years. The museum’s decision to move forward with layoffs without consulting the unions only further inflamed tensions.
“Our members are paying the price for the mistakes of management,” said Local 2110 Organizing Director Maida Rosenstein, who led the charge in 2021 to unionize museum staff that were not already covered by DC 37.
On Feb. 5, museum leadership contacted the two unions to inform them of the cuts but withheld the list of affected employees. The following morning, the unions held an emergency meeting. Management publicly confirmed the layoffs in an all-staff meeting.
Union leadership accused the museum of violating its contract by not negotiating before announcing the layoffs.
“The contract clearly states that before the museum can implement a layoff, the museum must negotiate with the union,” said Local 1502 President Wilson Souffrant. “The contract goes further and says the union must agree to the layoffs. So the museum broke the contract by not letting the union know that they’re going to be laid off.”
Museum spokesperson Danielle Villaluna told The Indypendent that management was just asking “that union leadership come to the table in good-faith bargaining that recognizes the realities of the museum’s financial outlook and the economic landscape in which we are operating.”
Management insisted that salary cuts were unavoidable. Workers and union leaders presented alternative proposals — including furloughs, voluntary buyouts and salary reductions for higher-paid staff — but said museum leadership had resisted considering them.
Workers also expressed concern about how reductions in the workforce would affect the museum’s operations and safety. One worker, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisal, questioned how the elaborate upcoming Arts of Africa exhibition could be safely put together with fewer workers.
A Feb. 28 special oversight hearing by the City Council Committee on Civil Service and Labor put further pressure on the museum. Although Brooklyn Museum workers are not city employees, the City Department of Cultural Affairs provides $10.5 million to the institution — around 20% of the museum’s operating budget and half of the DC 37 workers’ salaries.
Both union leaders and museum workers testified. Council members stressed that the museum had not exhausted all avenues before laying off workers. They also questioned why city-funded institutions were not required to submit financial contingency plans before implementing layoffs. Councilmember Carmen De La Rosa (D-Manhattan) pressed Cultural Affairs Commissioner Laurie Cumbo on whether the agency had any role in ensuring staff retention before funding institutions.
“We don’t take into account staff reductions when we are funding the institution,” Cumbo admitted.
DC 37’s Henry Garrido criticized the museum’s rush to lay off workers before exhausting possible alternatives.
“The budget process ends in June,” he told the committee. “If we have the best possible intention to address the financial problems of the museum, why would you make the layoffs effective March 9? Even if the City Council didn’t put up all the money — if we had a way to reduce that $10 million deficit to, say, six — then maybe you didn’t have to lay off 47 people. Maybe you could have reduced it to 20, and then we could have worked to turn that 20 to zero.”
No museum leadership attended the hearing.
On March 6, hundreds of demonstrators again gathered in front of the museum, chanting “People power; union power!” and holding signs that read “Built by museum workers” and “Abuse of power comes as no surprise.”
Although union leaders remained defiant, some workers feared that Trump Administration policies might enable management to get away with refusing to compromise. Souffrant noted that Trump had fired pro-labor National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox, leaving the five-member board without a quorum to issue orders in disputed cases. (On March 6, a federal judge ruled that Wilcox must be reinstated.)
In the end, it was union pressure — bolstered by city scrutiny, media coverage, and public outcry — that forced the museum to reconsider. It’s not immediately clear, however, if the city will provide more funding. In a cultural sector where job security is increasingly precarious, this fight has underscored a deeper struggle over power, priorities, and the future of labor in New York City’s arts institutions.
