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
    224
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      106
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why the fuck do they even need a non-compete clause for a sandwich shop? Are they worried people are going to reveal their secret Jimmy Johns technique for putting salami on bread to Subway?

        • EatATaco
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

          • JokeDeity
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • EatATaco
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              What makes them require such skill?

                • EatATaco
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  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?

                  • CmdrShepard42
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    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?

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s legal for them to do so, and if employees can’t go to a competitor, it has the effect of depressing wages.

        Non-compete clauses make sense for certain higher level employees (and usually involve some sort of garden leave payment too) but corporate America has started to slip all sorts of bullshit into standard employment contracts just because they can.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          10 months ago

          I don’t even think it makes sense for them anymore. You either retain them with pay and job satisfaction or not. This idea that corporations can own experience is bullshit.

          • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            10 months ago

            Kinda like the whole Disney artist thing.

            Any character you create while working for Disney is Disney property. Even if it was a quick sketch done on a napkin. Even if the character doesn’t even have a name.

        • TipRing@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s not just to depress wages, preventing worker mobility also lets you abuse them in other ways like rotating schedules (which also prevent workers from holding multiple jobs or going to school), bad work environments and wage theft.

          It’s not surprising that companies are increasingly abusing the workforce, it’s surprising that workers haven’t started organizing to fight back.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I mean you joke, but that actually happened by me lol

        There is a hero shop that is well known for specific heros they make that are really good, so after they fired a guy who worked there for years and years he opened his own shop and took all their recipes plus added pizza. (He also hired someone to make pizza and then fired him after he learned how to do it. He’s just a scumbag lol)

      • variaatio@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        It isn’t about need, but about want. Every extra notch of control they can get over workers employment opportunities, they want.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      10 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
        ·
        10 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
      15
      ·
      10 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
      10 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.

    • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 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.

    • TheHotze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 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
        ·
        10 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.

    • IHadTwoCows
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Where are the conservatives acreaming ‘if you dont like your job get a better one!!’?