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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ersatz@infosec.pub 208 points 6 months ago

For example, the sandwich chain Jimmy John’s previously came under scrutiny for forcing its low-wage workers to sign noncompete agreements that prevented them from working for a nearby business for two years after they left.

Jesus, they basically want slavery. They want workers to be completely dependent on them to the point that you legally can't go work at a different sandwich shop. I've only eaten there once and it was mediocre, but I'll never step foot in there again. What the fuck.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 100 points 6 months ago

Why the fuck do they even need a non-compete clause for a sandwich shop? Are they worried people are going to reveal their secret Jimmy Johns technique for putting salami on bread to Subway?

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 47 points 6 months ago

The myth of the non-skilled worker isn't working in their favor here.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 32 points 6 months ago

It's legal for them to do so, and if employees can't go to a competitor, it has the effect of depressing wages.

Non-compete clauses make sense for certain higher level employees (and usually involve some sort of garden leave payment too) but corporate America has started to slip all sorts of bullshit into standard employment contracts just because they can.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

I don't even think it makes sense for them anymore. You either retain them with pay and job satisfaction or not. This idea that corporations can own experience is bullshit.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 10 points 6 months ago

I mean you joke, but that actually happened by me lol

There is a hero shop that is well known for specific heros they make that are really good, so after they fired a guy who worked there for years and years he opened his own shop and took all their recipes plus added pizza. (He also hired someone to make pizza and then fired him after he learned how to do it. He's just a scumbag lol)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

Fun fact, there are franchise owners for all the big names that do this. McDonald's, Pizza Hut, etc. It's not usually a corporate decision.

Related, there are chains that won't hire from each other. They maintain a gray list of previous employees and you can only get hired back at your original location.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] derf82@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Ah yes, workers might take those precious trade secrets of (checks notes) how to make a sandwich.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 157 points 6 months ago

Why do these companies never get it? You want to retain talent… you gotta pay to retain that talent.

More accurately, you want your experienced and proprietary-knowledge-laden people to not take that stuff elsewhere…. Gotta pay them what they’re worth.

Can’t keep lowballing the pay raises, and expect people to not shop around,

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 53 points 6 months ago

Sure they can, so long as they can ensure they have a high-placed government stooge or two to ensure they can legally blacklist an employee from the industry if they leave.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

He who lives by the free market shall die by the free market

[-] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 44 points 6 months ago

He who lives by the free market will manipulate the free market to his advantage at the first opportunity to not have to actually live by the free market.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] 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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 116 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Cute how she's being likely being paid under the table by some lobbyists that benefits from said non-compete agreements. And even if not under the table, it's likely under the form of campain contributions, etc. Politics and capitalism mixed together brings the worst in both.

Nobody in their right mind would elect to veto something giving more rights to the working class without having some personal interests on the line.

load more comments (24 replies)
[-] raynethackery@lemmy.world 82 points 6 months ago

You picked the wrong side, Governor.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 64 points 6 months ago

And this is one of the reasons top tech talent stays in Silicon Valley / San Francisco, and why that area innovates so quickly.

If your company sucks, I’ll work for your competitor.

[-] JDubbleu@programming.dev 43 points 6 months ago

It's also why wages are so high. You wanna keep your talent? You gotta pay more than the company next door, or have better perks to make up for the wage disparity.

I got poached from AWS because my current team has a full AWS stack, and they wanted someone who knew it inside and out. They offered me a full remote position (whole company is full remote) with a higher salary, but slightly less TC. My new job is also way less stressful and with way more freedom.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 63 points 6 months ago

Why can't they retain top talent by paying them more?

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

But how would that benefit the shareholders? You're not thinking like a true capitalist!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FluffyPotato@lemmy.world 47 points 6 months ago

How are contracts like this enforceable in the US? Like here you could have a clause like that but the moment you try to sue someone for working at a competitor the judge would just laugh at you and throw your ass out of court. You can't have just anything in a contract, just like if a contract breaks employment laws then it's not valid.

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 37 points 6 months ago

Most contracts have a severability clause saying if any clause is unenforceable then that clause shall be severed, but the rest stands. This lets companies take some big swings with what they put in there.

It takes time and money and stress for a worker to challenge any terms regardless of their merit. So an invalid contract still keeps you down, just not as strongly as the invalid contract itself claims to be.

[-] ZeroTemp@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

They are rarely enforced and when they are it is usually due to some sort of significant financial loss the company suffered. Normally a company is not going to waste time and money taking a cook or cashier to court over quitting a job at McDonald's then going to work Burger King. But a senior software engineer working at Google going to work for Apple could have some real financial implications, so they'd be more likely to pursue legal action against that person. Still kinda bullshit in my mind but I get it.

[-] psmgx@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

Yeah but California has already banned non-competes, has for years, and Google and Apple seem to be doing just fine with the financial implications.

Also non-competes are different from NDAs.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

But a senior software engineer working at Google going to work for Apple could have some real financial implications

No, unless you mean something quite different than that title. A large company will have hundreds or even thousands of senior software engineers, and it’s really not something that should be restricted with non-competes

To be valid, a non-compete should:

  • be subject to contract law, not just imposed
  • include recompense
  • not prevent you from getting a job
  • be narrowly tailored (ie, not prevent someone from working)
  • limited duration
  • can only apply to a few where the impact can be described or quantified: founders, executives, celebrities, top sales people with same customers
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

There's still protections. Apple just got rocked for stealing the entire dev team from somewhere and just wholesale copying the code. Which is on Apple, not the worker. They could absolutely have taken them for an adjacent project (it was sensors in smart watches) using the same sensors. Or paid a licensing agreement for what was there with a right to improve it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 44 points 6 months ago

legitimately trying to retain top talent

"Trying to figure out how to pay their talent less"

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 29 points 6 months ago

Related. My previous employer had a b2b non-compete. The clients couldn't hire me. Yes it did end up costing me a job and a lawyer told me it would be very dicey challenging it the way it was written. On the plus side the client went bankrupt a few months back so that would have sucked.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] stress_headache@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

Any chance of overturning the veto?

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

If you want to retain top talent, pay them, give them better working conditions, offer them fulfilment. Don't make it illegal for them to work elsewhere.

We need free markets and deregulation... until it inconvenieniences non-productive shareholders in the slightest or those dirty workers start getting a little uppity.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

Thank god for states with half a brain. Non-competes are illegal in my state and not enforceable.

[-] ours@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

In my country non-compete laws are extremely rational: if you want to enforce such a contract, pay the person what he could make at a competitor during the entire duration you want to prevent him from going to the competition.

It's not up to the State to pay unemployment for people because you don't want talent to go somewhere else. Pay up or STFU.

Idiot employers will still put silly non-compete clauses into their contracts to scare people but I just chuckle as they are unenforceable unless they want to pay me to stay "on the beach".

[-] JustCopyingOthers@lemmy.ml 22 points 6 months ago

From this photo, this woman looks like the baddie from Men In Black 2.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 20 points 6 months ago
[-] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 16 points 6 months ago

The funny thing is then the rich companies spends millions on lawyers to say that poached employee's stuff was common knowledge and thereby not an NDA issue or trade secret.

You turn around and say I'm leaving but will say the same stuff that person said to the next employer and they'll sue with the same lawyers.

"It's ok if I do it but not if they do it"

[-] Desistance@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Hope they have votes to overrule her veto.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
689 points (99.3% liked)

News

21850 readers
5250 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