this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
484 points (99.0% liked)

News

23001 readers
3381 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
 

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 182 points 9 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

McDonald's et al corporate level don't care if franchisees do this? I mean, I can see them not caring...but I could also see them trying to score social points by pretending to care and claiming they disallow it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] derf82@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

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

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Not slavery, serfdom.

Which is technically better then slavery for the serfs, but conveniently is also significantly cheaper for the landed gentry/capital class as they don't have to feed or house their serfs.

[–] TheHotze@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I thought it was a federal law, but it might just be in my state, but I thought for a non-compete to be valid, the employee has to be compensated for it?

[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

I don't know of any circumstance where you would be specifically compensated for a non-compete, but in my state they aren't valid unless you make a certain base compensation, which is currently about $125k/year.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Why do you think political bribery is so rampant and expected in the US?

Our politicians are almost exclusively paid middle managers for the owners. DC works for Manhattan and Silicon Valley.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 122 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (24 children)

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 90 points 9 months ago

You picked the wrong side, Governor.

[–] Drusas@kbin.social 60 points 9 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.

[–] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] ours@lemmy.world 13 points 9 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".

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The big question is, would they have gone bankrupt if they had been allowed to hire you?

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The two events are independent. The entire sector burned down.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stress_headache@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago

Any chance of overturning the veto?

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 26 points 9 months ago

legitimately trying to retain top talent

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

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

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?

[–] JustCopyingOthers@lemmy.ml 22 points 9 months ago

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

[–] Desistance@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

Hope they have votes to overrule her veto.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago
[–] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 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"

[–] Copernican@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

"trying to retain top talent".

THEY ARE NOT CHATTLE.

load more comments
view more: next ›