NY Governor vetoes ban on noncompete clauses, waters down LLC transparency bill

The one catch is that 50%+ of your compensation in these jobs is typically a yearly bonus which is not paid during your non-compete period.

But pretty much everyone knows this and socks away some money to limit the shock. The system works well both for employees and companies. There's some grumbling here and there but legislation like the one proposed in NYC would have needlessly broken a system that works pretty well.

Non-competes should have limits of months, and be paid at normal salary rates.

it has long been seen as related to the success of Silicon Valley and one of several reasons why random jurisdictions can’t compete with merely being excited about attracting tech companies

The effect is that two restaurants can each hire two people for a total of 40 hours per person, but don’t have to provide either with full-time benefits, like health care, paid time off, reliable hours, etc.

I wonder how your law works in situations like this.

https://archive.ph/O9iMu

Their terms are governed by the laws of California. If they can’t apply noncompete to employees then how do they get away applying it to customers?

https://tinyurl.com/cali-openai-complaint

To wit, getting the government to declare it especially exempt from the normal responsibilities of debts and liabilities that affect everyone else.

And I agree with you.

There is a similar law going into effect at the Federal level in January. Some people tried to fearmonger when telling me about it, but I thought it was pretty sane after some research.

Having an LLC is a privilege, not a right, and we should act like it.

Hoping to get the federal one invalidated as soon as 2024 starts, easier to establish standing in the courts once that law starts.

State level ones may be able to pass muster and be evaluated independently, but NY was already unattractive place to form LLC’s and not seeing the difference here. The states compete with each other for business so it just makes other states more attractive.

Maybe certain industries need beneficial owner information. But all LLC’s by mere nature of existing? No

While the President of Germany formally has to accept all laws it's a far less active role. According to the constitution, he's only allowed to not accept a law if he thinks it either was voted on in a process that's forbidden by the constitution or is itself against the constitution. This has happened only nine times since the federal republic exists.

edit: The president is also not the head of the executive, just so no one is confused. The chancellor doesn't have any special role in getting a law accepted.

1) Statewide and Nationwide elections attract more voters than local elections. This can mean that statewide officials such as the governor are from a party that more state voters support, while the state legislature is comprised of the opposite party, whose voters are more engaged in off years and smaller local elections. Michigan, for example, has had exclusively Democratic US Senators for a long time but the state legislature spent a long time controlled by Republicans.

2) Many state legislatures have appallingly gerrymandered districts to reinforce the party in power. Wisconsin, for instance, is very much a "purple" state (a close mix of Republican and Democratic voters), but its state legislature has Republican supermajorities due to gerrymandering.

Hochul is more or less the same as Cuomo, unfortunately.

You shouldn't have to pay more for employer-provided health insurance, for example. You should still get any employer contribution to retirement accounts. You should get an approximation of bonuses you would receive if actively working. And so on.

If a company thinks you are worth signing a non-compete, they should pay like you are still employed. Non-competes should be a burden for the company to discourage their use.

Basically, if you have a zero sum game with two companies and one has better IP than the other, it makes sense for the time span through which the company without can't reverse engineer it. In every other case it means the groups of companies under the umbrella of non-competes will slowly loose to groups of companies in jurisdictions without non-competes.

To expand on that, if you objectively have some special sauce that you don't want leaked to your competition then it's a net gain for you and a loss for the rest of X industry (where X is finance because they're the ones who want this, not tech). In reality though, it's extremely rare to have sole control over an incredibly strong piece of IP that defines a market. In reality, everyone thinks they do because they don't know what anyone else has. Everyone has something that gives them an edge, hence being competitive in the market, but sharing those secrets within their local area can make the whole industry way more performant.

The law applies to everyone so if you can't have non-competes, neither can your competition. At a local level it will make groups of companies much stronger than their more distant competitors because they can share knowledge under the table at a much higher rate.

Trademark laws seem to be useful. Laws against theft seem to be generally nice. Laws against selling company secrets. Contract laws.

For example, let's say I'm Bob the baker and I own Bob's Bakery. I sell my bakery to Steve. If I were to then open "Bob's New Bakery" across the street I would have sold Steve a crappy barrel of goods. You can see this in a lot of small service-based business too. So you'll have a non-compete that says you can't open an X within Y miles or Z months.

It's a useful construct for some cases.

The burden of proof is on "why should a state ban noncompete clauses". As another commenter noted, the default should be to permit voluntary agreements between parties.

There are certainly good arguments for why states should ban them. But that is the position that requires an argument.

The state may have concern if that mutual benefit is harmful to the rest of society. A medical doctor, for example, agreeing to not compete could see him no longer able to provide medical services, which could see a third-party to not receive the care they need. As such, the state may find a need to interject to protect the society (i.e. third-parties in need of medical care) it represents.

The point obviously is to make it much harder for employees to change jobs and consecutively reduce their wages.

We desperately need campaign finance reform and strong anti-corruption/bribery laws. After that, voting reform and ranked choice voting would go a long way to making things better.

That's a bit sad because it's the right wing ideology that I respect the most. I think their critics of postmodernity (the condition) are actually accurate and can be worked with (I'm pretty sure baudrillard was close to traditional conservatives towards the end of his life).

According to billionaire-owned media, the owner of which is owned by a trillionaire investor, you are a conspiracy theorist: both parties work for their constituents.