New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has 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.

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.worldEnglish
    198·
    11 months ago

    Nope. You just sign a contract without reading it, that’s on you.

    Or did you think them being pushy while you actually read it wasn’t because they never ever try to sneak something in?

    To clarify, you can’t add something way out of the pale, like “upon termination of this contract all assets of [whatever corpo] belong to FuglyDuck”… but you can definitely cross out terms you don’t ageee with (for example, the arbitration clause.)

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      112·
      11 months ago

      And how exactly do you prove it wasn’t crossed after being signed?

      If it had to go in front of a judge, there are no initials present to show that both parties were made aware of the change and one party claims that the contract was modified without them being informed then the contract as it was originally written will be considered valid.

      I find it hard to believe that I have to explain that you can’t modify a written contract without informing the other party and without having a proof that you did in case of a breach…

      By the way there’s a difference between including clauses on the typed document and manually introducing extra clauses. In the second case the judge would say the same as if information was crossed without informing the other party. The typed version is the original and the one that’s valid, without the hand written clauses that got added without the other party putting their initials to confirm they were informed. If extra clauses not previously agreed to by both parties (ex.: working hours agreed to during interview and written in the contract, extra clause saying they’re subject to change at the employer’s will in the written contract) were in the typed version then they were there from the beginning and it was the responsibility of both parties to be aware of them.

      https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/business-law/business-law-basics/contract-modification.html

      In a case where a clause with potential major consequences is modified (like removing a NDA or non compete agreement) it would be advised to reprint the document to remove any form of ambiguity.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
        52·
        11 months ago

        And how exactly do you prove it wasn’t crossed after being signed?

        “Your honor, they crossed it out after it was done! It’s fraud, you’re honor!”

        “Uhm. This is your copy?”

        “Yes?”

        “How did they cross out your copy?”

        Yeah, I dunno, it seems that’s the reason both parties keep a copy, huh?

        If it had to go in front of a judge, there are no initials present to show that both parties were made aware of the change and one party claims that the contract was modified without them being informed then the contract as it was originally written will be considered valid.

        They (or their representatives) have every right to read and review before they sign, just the same as you. If you agree to arbitration “I didn’t agree to that” doesn’t fly. They agree to a contract with it removed is the same.

        Anecdotally, I know I guy (he’s a coder,) I’ve worked with around in a few companies now; he “always” crosses out both the non-competes and the arbitrate clauses.

        Judge sided with him.

        NDA’s are typically their own document/contract rather than part of the employment contract. At least I’ve never seen one that wasn’t it’s own document (and I’m under around 140 NDAs right now…. Most of which aren’t withy employer. Contract security is like thst.)

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          11·
          11 months ago

          Sure thing buddy, Imma trust you bro on legal questions instead of using an actual credible source.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
        42·
        11 months ago

        I dunno. it seems like they do

        Technically, altering the document creates a counter offer- the original offer was rejected. If you make a counter offer for employment, and they behave like that offer is accepted, (ie by proceeding with onboarding, sending paychecks and assigning work,) it was accepted. Maybe not everywhere.

        I’ve a friend that does this all the time- specifically both arbitration and non compete clauses. Just because they use standardized forms doesn’t mean the contract isn’t unique.

        but then, there’s this Russian fellow , so there’s that, too,

    • stevehobbes
      1·
      11 months ago

      That’s very much debatable. The assumed level of sophistication of a business would probably cover the guy here, but you absolutely cannot just “sneak” modifications into agreements.

      If it was clear and conspicuous, that’s a lot different. If you take their agreement, OCR it and modify it without telling them and they sign it, there’s no way that’s enforced.