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.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 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.

    • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

  • Drusas@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    10 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

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

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    10 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 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.

  • ersatz@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    10 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.

  • FluffyPotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 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.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      They don’t have to actually enforce it, they just have to scare you with it. Or better yet, convince you they could enforce it

  • csm10495@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 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”

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Cute how she’s being likely being paid under the table by some lobbyists that benefits from said non-compete agreements.