New York governor vetoes bill that would ban noncompete agreements

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.

Drusas,

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,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

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, (edited )

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

FuglyDuck, (edited )
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

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, (edited )

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.

www.lawyers.com/…/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,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

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, (edited )

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

psmgx,

That’s not how contract law works, mon ami

Kecessa,

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

FuglyDuck,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

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,

FuglyDuck,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

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,

JustEnoughDucks,
@JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl avatar

That’s the thing though. They don’t want to best talent. That is the point. You have to pay for talent. Talent tends to rock the boat and has the power to spark change because the company becomes reliant on them.

Most companies are completely fine paying much less for mediocre workers who will keep their head down and deliver a mediocre product where the execs get a way better profit margin and can perpetuate toxic systems.

derf82,

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

Oh, no, that fact is exactly what they pull shit like this. They HATE that fact and will pull any underhand tactic to fight back against it. Noncompetes, union busting, collusion, monopoly building, whatever it take to pay their employees the least amount possible.

PugJesus,
PugJesus avatar

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,

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

pingveno,

Bingo. Letting people get strong armed into these sorts of "agreements" is a perversion of free markets.

rebelsimile,

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.

nitefox,

Free market for me not thee

md5crypto,

Non-competes for top tier jobs make sense, as the company invested a lot of money into the person and it wouldn’t be fair to have them poached for no cost by a rival. All tech companies make software engineers sign non-competes.

CosmicCleric,
@CosmicCleric@lemmy.world avatar

as the company invested a lot of money into the person and it wouldn’t be fair to have them poached for no cost by a rival.

They are employees, not indentured servants.

The financial risk should be on the corporation, and not on the employee. Corporations are the ones that are going to make the most money, between the two.

Jimmyeatsausage,

All software engineers do NOT sign non-competes. I’ve been in the field for 25 years…closest I ever signed was a NDA

TheGalacticVoid,

I’d argue that big tech doesn’t invest in its workers because they look for top-tier candidates already. Also, it is way too easy for companies to abuse non-competes. People shouldn’t be forced out of their industry because they left a bad employer.

werefreeatlast,

If I could just leave my current company and go to a different company that did the same thing it would be good for me if I wanted to move or make more money. The other company would probably not really make that much money.

WaxedWookie,

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.

olympicyes,

In California, non-compete agreements are banned unless the company compensates the person subject for the agreement. If the company can impose one for free, why not subject everyone to them?

Copernican,

Aren’t non competes generally very difficult to enforce? The people I’ve known that have gotten in trouble with non compete agreements are those in management positions that engaged in very active poaching of their old teams within a specified time frame.

Also, given the nature of remote work and hiring, I kind of have a mixed feeling. What does this kind of state regulation in a VHO/WFH environment do to NY workers in a job market with flexible location? These regulations really should be at the federal level.

Desistance,
@Desistance@lemmy.world avatar

Hope they have votes to overrule her veto.

QuarterSwede,
@QuarterSwede@lemmy.world avatar

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

ours,

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”.

IHadTwoCows,

“trying to retain top talent”.

THEY ARE NOT CHATTLE.

stress_headache,

Any chance of overturning the veto?

Lev_Astov,
@Lev_Astov@lemmy.world avatar

So what else was in the bill that got it vetoed? They always hide some egregious nonsense in bills like this so if it gets vetoed they can point the finger and create outrage.

NatakuNox,
@NatakuNox@lemmy.world avatar

Nothing just money paying a governor for her veto

Maggoty,

She states it in the article. She believes companies have a “right” to retain high end labor. This bill just straight up bans non compete agreements which would make it harder to retain well trained, experienced, professionals.

That said. Why in the fuck love did we ever decide it was okay to threaten someone’s livelihood for leaving a job? I don’t care how highly trained you are. Non competes are anti-competitive in nature. They should have never been allowed.

porkins,

Sure, ban non-competes, but remember that you can’t just go using your rival’s secrets at their competitors. Additionally, if your current company heavily paid to have you educated, it seems fair that you might need to sign some form of agreement where the cost of that education is a debt that slowly vests away with your tenure at the firm.

mindbleach,

The line between that and indentured servitude is real fuckin’ slim.

porkins,

Paying for an employee’s education with a condition that they must remain with the company for a certain period of time or repay the funds is not the same as indentured servitude. This arrangement is typically known as a “tuition reimbursement” or “employee education assistance” program.

Indentured servitude historically referred to a labor system where individuals were bound to work for a specific period of time to pay off a debt or obligation, often without freedom of movement or significant personal rights. It was a form of unfree labor.

On the other hand, tuition reimbursement programs in modern employment are voluntary agreements. Employees choose to accept the benefit under certain conditions, such as staying with the company for a set period. Failure to meet these conditions usually requires repayment of the benefits received, but does not involve any loss of personal freedom or rights. These programs are designed to encourage professional development and employee retention, and are regulated by labor laws to ensure fairness and consent.

mindbleach,

Debt as a concept is trivially easy to abuse. You give someone a month of training and say, yep, that’ll be a year’s salary. Don’t leave or we’ll repossess your car.

Indentured servitude was also voluntary. Nobody got pressganged into it. It was not technically slavery. You’d get an exciting new opportunity in the colonies, or a job at the mine with equipment helpfully provided, and ten years later you might earn enough to be broke.

Since labor laws evidently don’t prevent a contract from saying “you can’t work for anyone else in the industry you work in,” I’m skeptical that any regulations on this process are sufficient. Maybe late capitalism hasn’t twisted it hard enough to notice. Certainly it is a recent development that fuckin’ Jimmy John’s tried pushing non-compete agreements to flip burgers.

porkins,

Don’t sign a contract that you don’t like…

mindbleach,

Victim-blaming chickenshit attitude.

porkins,

How is someone that enters into an agreement on their own accord a victim? That makes no logical sense.

mindbleach,

Then why limit non-compete agreements? Or any agreements?

Rent paperwork says I own your firstborn. Don’t like it, don’t sign it.

We are fucking clearly talking about abusive extremes, from which business must be forced to back down, or else they’ll let that creep onto everyone and everything. When it becomes a matter of “agree to this or starve,” agreement is not an excuse.

porkins,

That is not exactly how it works. There are some legal protections to help with this. If a contract is grossly unfair or one-sided, it might be considered “unconscionable” and therefore unenforceable. This usually happens when one party has significantly more power or information than the other, leading to an abuse of that power. Courts may also refuse to enforce contracts that were entered into under duress, undue influence, or fraud.

mindbleach,

But what is anyone protected from, if they can just not sign a contract they don’t liiiike? How can it be grossly unfair, unconscionable even, if they entered into an agreement of their own accord? That makes no logical sense… according to you, 24 hours ago.

Otkaz,

Nothing that I can see. Read the bill.

www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/…/A

Lev_Astov,
@Lev_Astov@lemmy.world avatar

Thanks for the link. That’s worse than I thought, then. Wow.

DerisionConsulting,

/u/Lev_Astov@Lemmy.world didn’t even make it to the third paragraph of the article, I don’t think that they’ll read the bill.

raynethackery,

You picked the wrong side, Governor.

JustCopyingOthers,

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

mp3, (edited )
@mp3@lemmy.ca avatar

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.

Kbobabob,

You have a source for that?

Otkaz,

Here is a source for you.

en.wikipedia.org/…/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#….

We are a oligarchy

Kbobabob,

I understand what lobbying is, but thank you for the info. This doesn’t relate specifically to this person, though. OP says they are likely taking money and i asked for a reason to suspect this person in particular unless the argument is just “they all do it” in which case it wouldn’t be “likely”.

sndmn,

Look up likely in the dictionary.

mp3, (edited )
@mp3@lemmy.ca avatar

Hence the reason why I chose the likely being paid qualifier.

Soup,

“I’m just asking questions!”

If you don’t understand the power that words hold then maybe don’t use them with such conviction.

iquanyin,
@iquanyin@lemmy.world avatar

those words described our situation tho. is there some reason people shouldn’t do that? i mean beyond “it’s not true 100% of the time.”

Yearly1845,

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • RubberElectrons,
    @RubberElectrons@lemmy.world avatar

    Do you support the idea of a non-compete agreement?

    dragonflyteaparty,

    Why would you think they do from that comment chain? If the OP of the chain wants to say she’s getting paid off, they should have proof. As it is, the word likely is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting there while at the same time influencing people’s ideas on how our politicians vote. That has nothing to do whatsoever with your question which only serves to tell people if you want actual proof of bribery, then you must agree with not having the law that would have helped people.

    RubberElectrons,
    @RubberElectrons@lemmy.world avatar

    Sorry, your comment has nothing to do with my question.

    Please improve your cogency. Thank you and goodbye.

    dragonflyteaparty,

    Why would you think they do from that comment chain? If the OP of the chain wants to say she’s getting paid off, they should have proof. As it is, the word likely is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting there while at the same time influencing people’s ideas on how our politicians vote. That has nothing to do whatsoever with your question which only serves to tell people if you want actual proof of bribery, then you must agree with the not having the law that would have helped people.

    RubberElectrons,
    @RubberElectrons@lemmy.world avatar

    It’s simple to compare how negative legislation like this is for labor versus how much it helps corporations looking to scare employees trying to escape. Based on how positive for labor such a simple bill would have been, while seemingly negative for corporation’s bottom lines, the resulting suggestion of who she is and how her philosophy works as governor is trivial.

    Your weak personal convictions preclude your ability to conclude there is a fire when we collectively smell smoke, I am luckily unaffected.

    Yearly1845,

    deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • RubberElectrons, (edited )
    @RubberElectrons@lemmy.world avatar

    There’s a lot of useless truism verbiage here. Luckily it appears I’m more flexible than you, and will in fact claim that I think Kathy Hochul is working with the enemy of the people, corporations.

    Prove it? Again, flexibility, allows me to draw conclusions based on previous actions. The facts are:

    • corporations don’t like competition.
    • Kathy likes playing both sides based on legislation that’s been seemingly good for the little guy, but generally seems to have a critical loophole, see the hobbled right to repair law for a perfect example.
    • Kathy has a budget to balance, and friends in many circles that are both left and right in these large corporations.

    It is emphatically not a difficult conclusion to draw that she’s working with corporations on some things which are decidedly bad for New York’s general populace, and greatly advantage corporations. I personally give zero fucks about your fear of claiming she’s doing stuff without proof, as there is largely an asymmetry of information between the public and the inner machinations of the political class. We must suppose based on missing information, and I cannot see any reason for keeping such an archaic idea as a noncompetitive agreement.

    Stop being naive, you’re embarrassing yourself in front of everyone. The only question at this point is whether you’re doing it on purpose or not.

    CosmicCleric,
    @CosmicCleric@lemmy.world avatar

    /applaud

    sndmn,

    Try harder and you might write a whole sentence!

    Strawberry,

    deez

    USSEthernet,

    Deez?

    Strawberry,

    deez nuts

    USSEthernet,

    got eem

    csm10495,
    @csm10495@sh.itjust.works avatar

    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”

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • news@lemmy.world
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • mdbf
  • khanakhh
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • hgfsjryuu7
  • ngwrru68w68
  • rosin
  • kavyap
  • Durango
  • PowerRangers
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • anitta
  • modclub
  • tacticalgear
  • osvaldo12
  • GTA5RPClips
  • everett
  • ethstaker
  • vwfavf
  • tester
  • normalnudes
  • cisconetworking
  • cubers
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • All magazines