689
submitted 6 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

New York’s governor vetoed a bill days before Christmas that would have banned noncompete agreements, which restrict workers’ ability to leave their job for a role with a rival business.

Gov. Kathy Hochul, who said she tried to work with the Legislature on a “reasonable compromise” this year, called the bill “a one-size-fits-all-approach” for New York companies legitimately trying to retain top talent.

“I continue to recognize the urgent need to restrict non-compete agreements for middle-class and low-wage workers, and am open to future legislation that achieves the right balance,” she wrote in a veto letter released Saturday.

The veto is a blow to labor groups, who have long argued that the agreements hurt workers and stifle economic growth. The Federal Trade Commission had also sent a letter to Hochul in November, urging her to sign the bill and saying that the agreements can harm innovation and prevent new businesses from forming in the state.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Drusas@kbin.social 126 points 6 months ago

companies legitimately trying to retain top talent

Basically blacklisting them from their field for a year after leaving your company is not how you retain talent. Pay them better. Give them better health coverage or other benefits. Only being able to retain talent by basically threatening them if they leave is not a good look.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 49 points 6 months ago

knew a guy who crossed out those bits in the agreement. they HR peeps never noticed until he found a new place to work. (he now works for our company.) It amazes me; how many people fail to realize every contract is unique.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

A modification like that is only valid if both parties add their initials next to it to confirm they've seen it...

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Nope. You just sign a contract without reading it, that’s on you.

Or did you think them being pushy while you actually read it wasn’t because they never ever try to sneak something in?

To clarify, you can’t add something way out of the pale, like “upon termination of this contract all assets of [whatever corpo] belong to FuglyDuck”… but you can definitely cross out terms you don’t ageee with (for example, the arbitration clause.)

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And how exactly do you prove it wasn't crossed after being signed?

If it had to go in front of a judge, there are no initials present to show that both parties were made aware of the change and one party claims that the contract was modified without them being informed then the contract as it was originally written will be considered valid.

I find it hard to believe that I have to explain that you can't modify a written contract without informing the other party and without having a proof that you did in case of a breach...

By the way there's a difference between including clauses on the typed document and manually introducing extra clauses. In the second case the judge would say the same as if information was crossed without informing the other party. The typed version is the original and the one that's valid, without the hand written clauses that got added without the other party putting their initials to confirm they were informed. If extra clauses not previously agreed to by both parties (ex.: working hours agreed to during interview and written in the contract, extra clause saying they're subject to change at the employer's will in the written contract) were in the typed version then they were there from the beginning and it was the responsibility of both parties to be aware of them.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/business-law/business-law-basics/contract-modification.html

In a case where a clause with potential major consequences is modified (like removing a NDA or non compete agreement) it would be advised to reprint the document to remove any form of ambiguity.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

And how exactly do you prove it wasn't crossed after being signed?

“Your honor, they crossed it out after it was done! It’s fraud, you’re honor!”

“Uhm. This is your copy?”

“Yes?”

“How did they cross out your copy?”

Yeah, I dunno, it seems that’s the reason both parties keep a copy, huh?

If it had to go in front of a judge, there are no initials present to show that both parties were made aware of the change and one party claims that the contract was modified without them being informed then the contract as it was originally written will be considered valid.

They (or their representatives) have every right to read and review before they sign, just the same as you. If you agree to arbitration “I didn’t agree to that” doesn’t fly. They agree to a contract with it removed is the same.

Anecdotally, I know I guy (he’s a coder,) I’ve worked with around in a few companies now; he “always” crosses out both the non-competes and the arbitrate clauses.

Judge sided with him.

NDA’s are typically their own document/contract rather than part of the employment contract. At least I’ve never seen one that wasn’t it’s own document (and I’m under around 140 NDAs right now…. Most of which aren’t withy employer. Contract security is like thst.)

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Sure thing buddy, Imma trust you bro on legal questions instead of using an actual credible source.

[-] psmgx@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

That's not how contract law works, mon ami

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

I dunno. it seems like they do

Technically, altering the document creates a counter offer- the original offer was rejected. If you make a counter offer for employment, and they behave like that offer is accepted, (ie by proceeding with onboarding, sending paychecks and assigning work,) it was accepted. Maybe not everywhere.

I’ve a friend that does this all the time- specifically both arbitration and non compete clauses. Just because they use standardized forms doesn’t mean the contract isn’t unique.

but then, there’s this Russian fellow , so there’s that, too,

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

That's how people think contract law works and that's scary

this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
689 points (99.3% liked)

News

21821 readers
5267 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS