Summary Worker Freedoms & Employment Rights Advocates
This Fortune article reports on New York's proposed legislation to ban noncompete employment agreements, which would affect millions of workers nationwide. The coverage centers on worker rights to choose employment freely and maintain economic security, while documenting significant opposition from business groups and Wall Street. The editorial framing emphasizes the protective intent and potential economic benefits of restrictions on worker mobility, presenting the debate as fundamentally about whether workers should have freedom to pursue better employment opportunities.
In Sweden all non-compete clauses that has been challenged by a court has been thrown out. Unless they have been backed by compensation. Too few cases has been tried to establish a floor for this compensation, but numbers thrown around indicate that you should be prepared to pay around 60-80% of the salary during the non-compete period.
I've heard about a good compromise option existing in a country in Europe: noncompete agreements are not banned completely but are limited to last just half a year after the employee leaves the company. It can also last much longer in case the employer agrees to keep paying half the salary to the former employee.
New Yorks leads the pack as usual. If you want to understand why continental European salaries are mostly low , don’t only look at the social security cost, but also at the labor law which is a middle aged indentured servitude heritage wrapped with worker rights bullshit : in France, 3 months notice period, up to 8 month of trial period, non competes with ridiculous comp. are very common for startups and Mid Sized businesses, same as non sollicitation, exclusivity clauses (generally all in a combo). Plus you get shunned if you job leave your master too quickly (ie less than 1 or 2 years depending on sector). And if you get fired be prepared for the Wild West of reference checking (nothing that can legally protect you from an ex bully who wants you to pay the price of daring leaving), loosing full health cover, and so on.
What’s a New York noncompete look like? In australia as far as I can tell it discusses associated entities - I can’t go and work for my employers major client directly if I was involved with that client during my tenure, but if I’ve had no association, I think I can. There’s also caveats around ‘right to earn a living’ if your skillset or specialty limits you to people associated with your employer, but as far as I can tell you can go and work for a competing company to your former employer, assuming the competitor was not your employers client.
Quant firms at least are one of the few places where noncompetes can make sense. It's an extremely IP sensitive industry with stupendously high pay where the employee is going to someone probably competing very directly with you, for the same/similar opportunities. Actual code + NDAs banning literal reimplementations of stuff aren't that valuable, the knowledge and ideas will stay in the head of the employees.
The two main issues I have with them are that firms tend to give them to just about everybody (instead of just to folks working very directly with real IP), and they only pay base salary, not something closer to actual total compensation (often multiples of the base pay).
Having said that, the quant firm is relatively unimportant and not a good reason to prevent a total noncompete law. It's probably better to just ban them then try and make allowances that aren't full of loopholes.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, how does a noncompete gets enforced anyway? Unless you’re a person legally required to make public your job, I don’t see how any private entities can trace your work history.
i'll post one of my favorite related facts about noncompetes. Famously, California bans them, but this was not an intentional policy choice for the sake of entrepreneurship. It was done in the 19th century and almost by accident.
David Dudley Field II was a jurist who drafted a code of laws which was adopted by New York state. After this, motivated by his study of English common law, he made an updated code of laws which included a provision banning noncompete agreements.
This model code was not accepted by New York, and just floated around for a while, until it happened to be on hand when California was becoming a state, with nobody thinking much about noncompete agreements.
North Dakota also adopted the Field Code and also bans noncompetes.
Here's my stance on noncompetes: I'm fine with them as long as the employee is compensated sufficiently.
Wall Street firms will often have 12 month noncompetes but you get paid for that year. Details matter however. Like you might be paying for health insurance (COBRA). You won't be getting any bonus. Any bonus money in the fund gets removed and put into treasuries, which in some years may have a better performance so that's a mixed bag.
If Wall Street wants noncompetes, the employee should get paid 1.5 times the annual average total compensation they had for the previous 2, 3, 4 or 5 years, whichever is best for the employee.
The article doesn't address what I think is the most important aspect of noncompete agreements: compensation.
In France, and I believe in many other places as well, you can't have a noncompete without proper compensation. Compensation is relative to how it will affect the former employee career, it is usually less than a full wage, but it can be that if it makes finding a new job particularly difficult.
There have been a trend at one time of bullshit noncompete clauses that were too broad and didn't come with compensation, these are not enforceable. If they tried to sue the employee (they don't), they would be laughed off by the judge.
"We are hiring you because you already know how to swing a hammer in our industry, but you may not use a hammer for any other company who may also have hired you for knowing how to swing a hammer"
Non-compete clauses are already extremely difficult to enforce. They're traditionally disfavored under common law; get one before a judge and it will frequently be struck out, or at minimum, sharply limited in scope. But it's not about winning an injunction or damages for the employers that use non-competes, it's about using the threat of a lawsuit to keep workers nice and biddable.
So the bill is well worth doing, just people stop writing unenforceable bs into contracts.
Noncompetes without a proper wage commensurate of the position is just slavery.
And after the US civil war, a whole lot of slaveowners were also really upset in losting their slaves... But even they got reparations for losing "property".
I think states should regulate the employee relationship a little more than they do. There should be standard contracts and the idea that a job listing is for a standard contract. If they offer you a job, it's for that contract. If they want to deviate, they either have to state up front what the additional terms are and compensation for them, or negotiate it after the offer is accepted. Contracts are not fair if people can't start from an equal footing.
On Wall Street it is typical to get full salary for the non-compete period, but in some cases that may be a modest fraction of total compensation including bonus/other incentives.
Does French law mandate trial periods or 3 month notice periods? You can usually negotiate those away. Reference checks or trial period but you should really not require both, that's an employer problem.
Europe pays lower than the US but pays better than other regions. There are many countries with low pay and poor labor rights. We should try to have high pay and better labor rights.
Don't know about that but a compromise option always exists when the two parties are willing to compromise.
E.g. in our country noncompetes are outlawed but if your company is willing to pay for your gardening leave for a year, then you might be willing not to compete with them for that time. Happened to my boss (at 100% salary).
> Quant firms at least are one of the few places where noncompetes can make sense. It's an extremely IP sensitive industry with stupendously high pay where the employee is going to someone probably competing very directly with you, for the same/similar opportunities.
So the solution is that employees should only be able to work for one employer in their career? I wouldn't disagree with this argument if the noncompete came with a payout in the tens of millions of dollars.
Business owners and managers talk. I've heard of unofficial (and very illegal) blacklisting being a thing in NYC in the past, for multiple industries.
Collusion between employers to ensure that non-competes are enforced sounds very plausible, given that it is legal.
I think that the existence of a non-compete may also be a liability for the new employer, and it's not solely a practice meant to remind labor of what their place is.
The employee should be over-compensated. If you were making $200k pre-tax at the job, the non-compete agreement should at a minimum require you to be paid $200k post-tax.
Companies and government agencies routinely hire PIs to follow people receiving disability benefits to gather evidence that might indicate they're not as disabled as they attest. You can bet that if they're willing to track people over disability checks, they're going to use those same tools to enforce non-competes.
Non-competes have only ever made sense where the employee is compensated for signing. Codifying this change would immediately make companies stop with blanket non-competes, and only have them on key people.
While not impossible, non-competes without compensation are already hard to enforce as judges don't look kindly on preventing people from earning a living. The problem is the asymmetry of power let companies bully and intimidate ex-employees.
This is a problem in the tech industry but not on Wall Street.
The norm there is paid time off between jobs (“gardening leave”). Everyone knows it is part of the system and that a mid level or senior hire can’t start right away. They also buy out still vesting bonuses and the like.
It’s quite a civilized system and I think the law ought to leave it alone, while addressing abusive ones like we have in tech.
I’ve been under two. One prohibited working with any existing clients for a calendar year after my termination date. A second prohibited working in a similar role in the US for a year. Both applied to employment and not other actions one might do such as shorting the former employer’s stock.
> the employee should get paid 1.5 times the annual average total compensation they had for the previous 2, 3, 4 or 5 years, whichever is best for the employee.
Wouldn't everyone quit after having two unusually good years back to back?
In what universe is it a good compromise that fast food workers aren't allowed to work at another fast food restaurant for 6 months after they quit, without any compensation?
It incentivize companies to add it to their contract just because it makes it harder for employees to quit bad working conditions and low pays since they might not land a new job and be able to pay rent. It doesn't protect any sort of intellectual property, it's simply there to screw over the little guy.
The word "compromise" usually implies that both sides are getting something. What part of this would be a compromise?
> Quant firms at least are one of the few places where noncompetes can make sense. It's an extremely IP sensitive industry with stupendously high pay where the employee is going to someone probably competing very directly with you, for the same/similar opportunities.
Cry me a river. If knowledge of some particular employees worth so much to the quant firms, then they should pay them not to leave accordingly.
Assuming they didn't hide the noncompete clause from the employee, and assuming there's not a binding minimum wage in effect, the necessary compensation is already going to be included. Unless you believe the employee is engaging in charity work on the behalf of the employer!
What's the point of a law requiring it? Unless it's an addition to a minimum wage law and only in effect for those being paid the minimum wage...
Are quant firms positive sum for society? I can imagine that some trading leads to goods being priced more efficiently or w/e but I doubt the level of alpha these firms are chasing has positive externalities. If not, you should shouldn't really care about this hurting their industry.
Now they don't have 6-24m non-competes anymore, but 6-24m notice periods. You're paid full salary (incl bonus) but you don't work ("gardening leave") and obviously can't work for a competitor (because you can have a non-compete while you're employed).
Even better would be if employment law violations carried with them 3x+ punitive awards instead of just being made whole (while also being required to minimize damages by, e.g., getting another job).
If this existed employers would be much more well behaved, if only because of the number of lawyers who would suddenly be willing to take on lawsuits without retainer.
A lot of sub-industries are also "where everyone knows your name" places. I used to be an IT industry analyst (a couple of the large firms in which were known--at least at the time--for being pretty hard-core on non-competes) and pretty much everyone knew what firms other people in their space worked for. You could never have gone to a different firm and had your prior employer not know.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
+0.60
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
High Advocacy
Editorial
+0.60
SETL
ND
Article directly engages right to work and free choice of employment as central issue; extensively documents how noncompetes restrict this right for 30 million workers and advocates for legislative ban to restore it
Observable Facts
Article states 'About 1 in 5 American workers, nearly 30 million people, are bound by noncompete agreements'
Biden quote: agreements 'block millions of retail workers, construction workers and other working folks from taking better jobs and getting better pay and benefits in the same field'
FTC 'proposed a regulation in January banning noncompete agreements, arguing that they hurt workers'
Article quotes supporter: 'striking noncompete agreements will actually be good for innovation' and enable free choice of employment
Worker Tatum example shows person forced to choose between economic security and employment in chosen field
Inferences
The extensive focus on how noncompetes restrict employment choices directly engages Article 23 rights
The federal, state, and worker-level advocacy for removing restrictions demonstrates strong alignment with work freedom principles
The scale (30 million workers affected) emphasizes the fundamental nature of this right
+0.40
PreamblePreamble
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.40
SETL
ND
Content frames worker dignity and freedom from economic coercion as central to the policy debate; advocates for legislative protection of worker freedoms
Observable Facts
Article describes noncompetes as mechanisms that 'trap workers in middling jobs' and prevent economic advancement
Content advocates for legislative action (the proposed ban) to protect worker freedoms
Inferences
The framing of noncompetes as restrictive suggests recognition of inherent human dignity being compromised
The solution-oriented advocacy for a ban implies alignment with Preamble principles of freedom and equal dignity
+0.40
Article 13Freedom of Movement
High Advocacy
Editorial
+0.40
SETL
ND
Article directly advocates for worker freedom of movement and choice of employer; frames noncompetes as primary restriction on this right; extensively documents impact on millions
Observable Facts
Article emphasizes noncompetes prevent workers from moving to different employment: 'block millions of retail workers, construction workers and other working folks from taking better jobs'
State Senator Ryan argues freedom of movement is essential: 'All the flexibility you see in that economy would have been dashed had they made it so you couldn't go work for an emerging tech company'
Article notes worker Tatum 'wasn't moving or leaving his industry' but was restricted by noncompete from doing so
Inferences
The strong advocacy against restrictions on job mobility directly engages Article 13 freedoms
The Silicon Valley example demonstrates how unrestricted movement enables economic opportunity
+0.40
Article 22Social Security
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.40
SETL
ND
Article advocates for worker social security through employment protections; frames noncompete ban as essential for worker security and economic stability
Observable Facts
Article emphasizes noncompetes prevent workers from securing 'better jobs and getting better pay and benefits'
Content frames the ban as enabling 'employees more flexibility and agency' for economic security
Tatum case illustrates insecurity: laid off during financial meltdown, then sued for seeking to maintain economic stability
Inferences
The advocacy for economic protections aligns with Article 22 social security principles
The framing treats employment security as a fundamental right worthy of legislative protection
+0.30
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
ND
Article contrasts treatment of regular workers with executives regarding noncompete agreements, suggesting unequal application affects equal dignity
Observable Facts
Article states 'About 1 in 5 American workers, nearly 30 million people, are bound by noncompete agreements' while historically only executives had such restrictions
Content describes expansion of noncompetes from 'corporate executives with knowledge of prized trade secrets' to regular workers broadly
Inferences
The emphasis on expansion to regular workers suggests recognition of dignity erosion across different worker classes
The framing implies workers deserve equal protection regardless of position or pay level
+0.30
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
ND
Article frames noncompetes as restricting workers' liberty to choose employment and pursue economic opportunity; advocates for removing these restrictions
Observable Facts
Biden quote in article: agreements 'block millions of retail workers, construction workers and other working folks from taking better jobs and getting better pay and benefits in the same field'
Article states supporters argue the ban would give employees 'more flexibility and agency when considering other employment opportunities'
Inferences
The emphasis on 'blocking' economic choice recognizes liberty being compromised
The advocacy for removal of restrictions aligns with Article 3's protection of liberty
+0.30
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High Advocacy Practice
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.17
Article presents multiple perspectives in structured format: worker advocates, business groups, government officials, and FTC positions; allows different viewpoints to be expressed directly
Observable Facts
Article includes direct quotes from: Richard Tatum (worker), Paul Zuber (Business Council executive), State Senator Sean Ryan (legislator), Biden administration, Gov. Hochul's office, and FTC
Content presents opposing positions with both pro-ban and anti-ban advocates articulated in their own voice
Structure allows reader to hear directly from opposed stakeholders rather than only through editorial interpretation
Inferences
The multi-perspective format demonstrates editorial commitment to freedom of expression for different stakeholders
The balanced presentation enables readers to form judgments based on multiple viewpoints
+0.30
Article 21Political Participation
High Advocacy Practice
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
+0.24
Article frames the noncompete ban decision as a democratic process: bill passed by legislature, decision pending with elected governor, citizens engage in advocacy
Observable Facts
Article describes 'New York legislators to pass a bill last June' and Governor Hochul 'has until the end of the year to make a decision'
Content shows democratic engagement: business groups launched $1 million campaign, advocates argue positions, elected officials are quoted
Inferences
The framing emphasizes democratic decision-making processes and governmental accountability
The coverage of advocacy efforts demonstrates engagement with democratic participation mechanisms
+0.20
Article 4No Slavery
Low Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND
Article uses language suggesting workers are economically constrained ('trapped') which tangentially relates to freedom from conditions approximating forced labor
Observable Facts
Article contains phrase 'Horror stories about companies using noncompete agreements to trap workers in middling jobs or punish them'
Inferences
The 'trap' language implies workers are held in constrained economic conditions against their will
+0.20
Article 7Equality Before Law
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND
Article implies unequal protection under law by contrasting how noncompetes affect regular workers versus high-level positions
Observable Facts
Article describes noncompetes historically for 'corporate executives' but expanding to 'regular workers'
Business groups propose exceptions only for 'certain industries and job levels, like top executives or partners in tech companies or law firms'
Inferences
The different treatment by job level suggests potential equal protection concerns
The advocacy for uniform protection across classes implies support for equal application of law
+0.20
Article 17Property
Low Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND
Article discusses workers' inability to leverage their professional skills and expertise for economic benefit, implying property-like rights in one's labor
Observable Facts
Article describes workers unable to use 'their skills elsewhere for better pay' due to noncompete restrictions
Inferences
The emphasis on workers' skills as assets they should control suggests recognition of property-like interests in labor and expertise
+0.20
Article 25Standard of Living
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND
Article discusses how noncompetes prevent workers from accessing better pay and advancement necessary for adequate living standards
Observable Facts
Article emphasizes noncompetes prevent workers from taking 'better jobs and getting better pay and benefits'
Content frames inability to pursue better compensation as harm to workers' economic welfare
Inferences
The emphasis on prevented economic improvement suggests concern for adequate living standards
+0.20
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Low Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND
Article frames the noncompete ban as expanding rather than restricting worker rights; positions legislation as protective of rights
Observable Facts
Article advocates for the ban as enabling 'employees more flexibility and agency when considering other employment opportunities'
Inferences
The framing assumes the ban expands rights overall rather than creating new limitations
0.00
Article 8Right to Remedy
Low Framing
Editorial
0.00
SETL
ND
Article describes a legal remedy technically available to Richard Tatum (court action) but portrays it as burdensome and costly, suggesting inadequacy of remedy
Observable Facts
Article states Richard Tatum 'spent a year fighting' his former employer in court after being sued for violating a noncompete
Inferences
The portrayal of a year-long legal battle suggests the remedy, while available, is not adequately swift or accessible
-0.10
Article 10Fair Hearing
Low Framing
Editorial
-0.10
SETL
ND
Article presents legal process (Tatum's court dispute) as prolonged and burdensome, suggesting fairness and efficiency concerns with the trial mechanism
Observable Facts
Tatum quote: 'the fact that I had to spend a year fighting off my former employer was just wrong' characterizes the legal process negatively
Article emphasizes Tatum 'had a family to support' during the dispute, suggesting the process created unfair hardship
Inferences
The extended legal process and worker's characterization suggest concerns about fair and timely dispute resolution
The framing implies the system created unfair burden on the worker despite a remedy technically existing
-0.10
Article 29Duties to Community
Low Framing
Editorial
-0.10
SETL
ND
Article acknowledges business groups argue for limitations and exceptions to the ban, but frames these concerns as secondary to broad worker protection
Observable Facts
Article reports 'Business groups say the ban shouldn't apply to certain industries and job levels, like top executives or partners'
Inferences
The editorial positioning presents business limitations as less important than broad worker protections
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
ND
Article 5No Torture
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
ND
Article 12Privacy
ND
Article 14Asylum
ND
Article 15Nationality
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
ND
Article 26Education
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
Structural Channel
What the site does
+0.20
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High Advocacy Practice
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
+0.02
SETL
+0.17
Publication includes direct quotes from individual worker (Tatum), government officials (Biden, Hochul, State Senator Ryan), business executives (Paul Zuber), and federal agency (FTC)
+0.10
Article 21Political Participation
High Advocacy Practice
Structural
+0.10
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
+0.24
Publication reports on democratic institutions at work (legislature, executive review, citizen and business advocacy engagement)
ND
PreamblePreamble
Medium Advocacy
Content frames worker dignity and freedom from economic coercion as central to the policy debate; advocates for legislative protection of worker freedoms
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium Advocacy
Article contrasts treatment of regular workers with executives regarding noncompete agreements, suggesting unequal application affects equal dignity
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Medium Advocacy
Article frames noncompetes as restricting workers' liberty to choose employment and pursue economic opportunity; advocates for removing these restrictions
ND
Article 4No Slavery
Low Advocacy
Article uses language suggesting workers are economically constrained ('trapped') which tangentially relates to freedom from conditions approximating forced labor
ND
Article 5No Torture
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
Medium Advocacy
Article implies unequal protection under law by contrasting how noncompetes affect regular workers versus high-level positions
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
Low Framing
Article describes a legal remedy technically available to Richard Tatum (court action) but portrays it as burdensome and costly, suggesting inadequacy of remedy
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
Low Framing
Article presents legal process (Tatum's court dispute) as prolonged and burdensome, suggesting fairness and efficiency concerns with the trial mechanism
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
ND
Article 12Privacy
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
High Advocacy
Article directly advocates for worker freedom of movement and choice of employer; frames noncompetes as primary restriction on this right; extensively documents impact on millions
ND
Article 14Asylum
ND
Article 15Nationality
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
ND
Article 17Property
Low Advocacy
Article discusses workers' inability to leverage their professional skills and expertise for economic benefit, implying property-like rights in one's labor
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
ND
Article 22Social Security
Medium Advocacy
Article advocates for worker social security through employment protections; frames noncompete ban as essential for worker security and economic stability
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
High Advocacy
Article directly engages right to work and free choice of employment as central issue; extensively documents how noncompetes restrict this right for 30 million workers and advocates for legislative ban to restore it
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
Medium Advocacy
Article discusses how noncompetes prevent workers from accessing better pay and advancement necessary for adequate living standards
ND
Article 26Education
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
Low Framing
Article acknowledges business groups argue for limitations and exceptions to the ban, but frames these concerns as secondary to broad worker protection
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Low Advocacy
Article frames the noncompete ban as expanding rather than restricting worker rights; positions legislation as protective of rights
Supplementary Signals
Epistemic Quality
0.56
Propaganda Flags
1techniques detected
loaded language
Headline uses 'Wall Street is not happy' and article describes 'horror stories about companies using noncompete agreements to trap workers'
Solution Orientation
No data
Emotional Tone
No data
Stakeholder Voice
No data
Temporal Framing
No data
Geographic Scope
No data
Complexity
No data
Transparency
No data
Event Timeline
13 events
2026-02-26 20:21
eval_success
Evaluated: Mild positive (0.14)
--
2026-02-26 20:01
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy
--
2026-02-26 20:00
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy
--
2026-02-26 20:00
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Unknown model in registry: llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 20:00
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Unknown model in registry: llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 19:59
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:58
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:57
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:51
eval_success
Evaluated: Neutral (0.05)
--
2026-02-26 19:11
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy