Andrew Cuomo in Without the Charm

In service to her political campaign donors, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has, opposed stronger safety regulations for railroads, attempted to appoint a right-wing anti-abortion judge to the state Supreme Court, tacitly approved sub-standard education in New York yeshivas, let the eviction moratorium expire, and has attempted to neuter New York financial regulators.

Now, in service to her big ticket donors in banking, big law, and the like, she has vetoed the ban on noncompete agreements that passed the New York legislature.

I have discussed how noncompete agreements lower wages and reduce the formation of businesses in an earlier post.

It is clear that Huchul values the wellbeing of her campaign donors over that of the people of New York:

Gov. Kathy Hochul vetoed a bill on Friday that would have banned the use of noncompete agreements in New York after a furious lobbying effort by Wall Street and other powerful industries that forcefully opposed the measure.

Democrats in control of the State Legislature passed the bill in June, wanting New York to join other states that have cracked down on the use of noncompete agreements, which companies use to bar employees from working for a competitor for a set amount of time after leaving a job.

The bill’s supporters argued that the agreements had unfairly trapped an array of workers, from hairstylists to engineers and doctors, who sign away their right to leave for a competitor.

………

Noncompete agreements have proliferated throughout the economy in recent years: Between 18 percent to 45 percent of workers in the private sector may be bound by them, according to surveys. Critics argue that the restrictive clauses prevent the free movement of labor and place an unfair burden on a constellation of workers, especially those who work low-wage, low-skilled jobs.

Governments have responded in kind. About half the nation’s states have imposed sharp limits on noncompete clauses, and some states, like Minnesota and California, have banned them altogether. Under President Biden, the Federal Trade Commission is exploring a national ban on companies requiring workers to sign the agreements.

………

But as its potential impact on New York City’s financial industry became clear, the state’s most powerful business groups quickly mobilized to oppose it. Among them were the Business Council and the Partnership for New York City, which represents big-name banks and investment firms such as Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Warning of the potentially dire effects the ban would have on a company’s ability to retain top employees in one of the most important financial capitals of the world, the groups used their money and clout to lobby the governor, pushing her to water down the bill to ensure it would not apply to the highest-earning workers. 

And then there is this:

………

Ms. Hochul did sign a transparency bill that will require limited liability companies in New York to disclose their owners to the government and regulatory entities. But under the version of the bill that Ms. Hochul approved, the names of the owners will not become public in a searchable database as lawmakers originally intended.

So someone looks at the ownership data of fly-by-night scams only AFTER a crime has been committed.  Sweet.

I think that there are a number of points to make here:

• The position of Governor in New York is too powerful.
• The Democratic Party of New York is has a Quisling problem.

Given the amount of power that the Governor has, I do not see how one could successfully primary Hochul, but it should be tried.

Also, look into her finances.  Her hypocrisy might have crossed the line into actual legal corruption.