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.

  • ersatz@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    210
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 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.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      9 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.

      • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

    • derf82@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

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

    • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      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.