New York governor vetoes bill that would ban noncompete agreements
New York governor vetoes bill that would ban noncompete agreements
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
You have a source for that?
Hence the reason why I chose the likely being paid qualifier.
“I’m just asking questions!”
If you don’t understand the power that words hold then maybe don’t use them with such conviction.
those words described our situation tho. is there some reason people shouldn’t do that? i mean beyond “it’s not true 100% of the time.”
Permanently Deleted
Weasel words
Do you support the idea of a non-compete agreement?
Unequivocally, no. But we should be able to abolish non-competes without stooping to Republican "I bet there's a crime here somewhere" scare tactics. If you can prove the claim: great, please do so. But vetos are central to democracy, and just because someone passes legislation that you don't like (or doesn't pass legislation that you do like), doesn't mean they're in bed with your perceived enemies.
There's a lot of useless truism verbiage here. Luckily it appears I'm more flexible than you, and will in fact claim that I think Kathy Hochul is working with the enemy of the people, corporations.
Prove it? Again, flexibility, allows me to draw conclusions based on previous actions. The facts are:
- corporations don't like competition.
- Kathy likes playing both sides based on legislation that's been seemingly good for the little guy, but generally seems to have a critical loophole, see the hobbled right to repair law for a perfect example.
- Kathy has a budget to balance, and friends in many circles that are both left and right in these large corporations.
It is emphatically not a difficult conclusion to draw that she's working with corporations on some things which are decidedly bad for New York's general populace, and greatly advantage corporations. I personally give zero fucks about your fear of claiming she's doing stuff without proof, as there is largely an asymmetry of information between the public and the inner machinations of the political class. We must suppose based on missing information, and I cannot see any reason for keeping such an archaic idea as a noncompetitive agreement.
Stop being naive, you're embarrassing yourself in front of everyone. The only question at this point is whether you're doing it on purpose or not.
/applaud
Why would you think they do from that comment chain? If the OP of the chain wants to say she's getting paid off, they should have proof. As it is, the word likely is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting there while at the same time influencing people's ideas on how our politicians vote. That has nothing to do whatsoever with your question which only serves to tell people if you want actual proof of bribery, then you must agree with the not having the law that would have helped people.
It's simple to compare how negative legislation like this is for labor versus how much it helps corporations looking to scare employees trying to escape. Based on how positive for labor such a simple bill would have been, while seemingly negative for corporation's bottom lines, the resulting suggestion of who she is and how her philosophy works as governor is trivial.
Your weak personal convictions preclude your ability to conclude there is a fire when we collectively smell smoke, I am luckily unaffected.
Unequivocally, no. But we should be able to abolish non-competes without stooping to Republican "I bet there's a crime here somewhere" scare tactics. If you can prove the claim: great, please do so. But vetos are central to democracy, and just because someone passes legislation that you don't like (or doesn't pass legislation that you do like), doesn't mean they're in bed with your perceived enemies.
Why would you think they do from that comment chain? If the OP of the chain wants to say she's getting paid off, they should have proof. As it is, the word likely is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting there while at the same time influencing people's ideas on how our politicians vote. That has nothing to do whatsoever with your question which only serves to tell people if you want actual proof of bribery, then you must agree with not having the law that would have helped people.
Sorry, your comment has nothing to do with my question.
Please improve your cogency. Thank you and goodbye.
Try harder and you might write a whole sentence!
Here is a source for you.
We are a oligarchy
I understand what lobbying is, but thank you for the info. This doesn't relate specifically to this person, though. OP says they are likely taking money and i asked for a reason to suspect this person in particular unless the argument is just "they all do it" in which case it wouldn't be "likely".
Look up likely in the dictionary.
Here is a source for you.
We are a oligarchy
deez
Deez?
deez nuts
got eem