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.
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.”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Do you support the idea of a non-compete agreement?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Lobbyists are intermediaries between client,and state and local governments.
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.
deleted by creator
deez
Deez?
deez nuts
got eem