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.
I think everyone deserves a living wage, and the jobs can certainly be tough, but comparably speaking, do you really think these are not low skill jobs?
It’s almost certain he’s trying to stop people being lured away by more favorable terms, like better pay, benefits, or shifts, not because he thinks he’s losing skills to some other company.
I don’t think they were saying it’s a low skill job. You can tell because they used the word “myth”. Which it is; there’s almost no such thing as a low skill job in this day and age.
What makes them require such skill?
If they’re unskilled, why have a non-compete clause?
Because they want to make it so it’s harder to leave for better pay, better benefits, or better hours.
Now can you answer my question?
I’m no sandwich artist so I can’t do more than speculate. If they’re zero skilled workers, why would there be a worry of attrition since literally anybody is capable of doing the job?
I didn’t say “zero skilled” I was careful with my words.
But even with low skill positions, there is still money lost in the acquisition and training. They are trying to avoid or minimize these losses with a basically free method: giving a way to legally threaten them from trying to move to other low skill positions nearby.
And it also helps them suppress wages in the area, saving them money. There are obvious non skill related reasons that one might try to stop workers from having the freedom move from one job to another.
The reality is that these aren’t high skilled positions. I’m not saying they aren’t hard or aren’t important, only they it’s generally speaking easier to find someone with the required skills to train for these jobs.
Based on the fact that noone can explain why they are actually high skill positions, I feel justified in this.
Fyi, it was a while ago, but I’ve worked in numerous places doing low skill work. I’m not coming from a place of ignorance.
The person you argued against stated “non-skilled.” Are you now saying that you agree with them?
There is no job that is skillless and there never has been. So if they really were suggesting what they were literally implying - that at some point in time there were plenty of non-skilled jobs - then they are completely clueless. Which is why I was trying to steer the conversation to what they really meant, which I figured was something reasonable.
But if we are being pedantic and literally interpreting what they said: no I don’t agree because it’s stupid to believe there has even been a period of time where there was some abundance of jobs that required no skill. The implication of their post was there is something unique about the modern time that means all jobs are somehow particularly skillful, which I disagree with. I’m willing to bet it’s actually the opposite.