New laws
Monday, Aug 9, 2021 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Crain’s…
Now that he’s a member of the Illinois General Assembly, Nick Smith isn’t embarrassed to say he struggled early in college. As he bounced back and forth between classes and his job, he spent little time on campus.
It wasn’t until Smith got a work-study job at Olive-Harvey College, a Far South Side community college, that things changed. “I started to feel immersed in the academic setting. I started to feel focused,” he recalls. After completing the two-year program, Smith went on to get a bachelor’s degree from nearby Chicago State University, and since 2019 he has represented the 34th District in the State Assembly.
With his personal experience in mind, Smith introduced legislation in Springfield this year that allows community colleges to add student housing for the first time. Signed into law July 9 by Gov. J.B. Pritzker, the measure allows for residential projects to begin on or near campuses throughout the state starting in January. […]
“Retention, retention, retention” is the goal of the new law, said Thomas Saban, interim president of Prairie State College, a community college in south suburban Chicago Heights. Saban isn’t planning to become a developer of dorms: The law requires community colleges to partner with their local affordable housing agency to build student housing.
* Crain’s…
When former Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner signed the Freedom to Work Act, or FWA, into law in 2016, the circumstances weren’t all that controversial. The measure, prompted by a Jimmy John’s policy that barred employees from getting hired at rival sandwich shops, would protect low-wage workers from noncompete agreements that stifled their earning potential. Even Rauner, a politician reviled by organized labor groups, got on board with the idea after the Illinois Attorney General’s Office sued the chain known for its “freaky fast” delivery
Now the FWA, originally limited in scope, is set to become much more expansive.
Under a bill passed unanimously by lawmakers this spring, and which Gov. J.B. Pritzker still must sign, employers are prohibited from imposing noncompetes on workers earning below $75,000 and from using nonsolicitation agreements on those making below $45,000. Advocates laud the move as a victory for economic mobility—especially as employees re-evaluate their priorities and job preferences during the pandemic. But some local businesses worry the changes are coming at a time of monumental uncertainty. With President Joe Biden recently directing the Federal Trade Commission to rein in the “unfair use” of noncompetes, the rules could continue shifting, and companies fear more restrictions will put their proprietary information, client lists and employee retention efforts at risk.
* Press release…
Legislation sponsored by State Senator Donald DeWitte (R-St. Charles) that provides units of government with greater opportunities to obtain more favorable returns on invested reserve funds has been signed into law. The new provisions apply to all units of government, from the State of Illinois, down to counties, municipalities, townships, and smaller local units such as schools, park districts, and libraries.
Senate Bill 273, signed by Gov. Pritzker on Friday, provides units of government with a wider variety of investment tools for reserve funds. The legislation was negotiated between the Illinois Association of Park district and the Illinois Treasurer’s Office.
“This legislation gives those who oversee units of government greater flexibility when they invest public funds,” said Sen. DeWitte. “I want to thank Treasurer Frerichs and his staff for their assistance in helping craft language that ensures governmental units have the widest level of choices possible for their investments, while also protecting taxpayers for overly-aggressive and risky investments.”
Specifically, through SB 273, public agencies can invest in up to 1/3 of their reserve funds in specific corporate investments and an additional 1/3 in other corporate investments that meet prescribed parameters.
“This is one small way that we can help units of government grow their revenues internally without having to go to taxpayers,” added Sen. DeWitte.
SB 273 received unanimous approval in the Senate and House, and its provisions take effect immediately.
* Other stuff…
* Pritzker Signs Surplus Property Act, McClure Hopes It Paves the Way for Eventual Sale of JDC Grounds
- Blake - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 2:29 pm:
Non-competes give employers so much power over employees to prevent employees from shopping for a fair wage for their skills, I am glad to see non-compete non-enforceability expanded.
- Downstate - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 2:50 pm:
I’m involved with a company that has a novel food offering. They are struggling to get started, while their competitors would love to know their “secret sauce”…..and would be happy to hire an employee to get it. It’s a conundrum.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 2:56 pm:
- Downstate -
This isn’t 1935.
There are whole television programs about merely purchasing a food item and the “clinical analysis” of that item/sauce/frosting/seasoning is then broken down.
This was also the “hook” in “Willy Wonka” and Slugworth.
It’s cheaper to buy the product than go all Jason Bourne to “extract” it.
- Ares - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 3:05 pm:
Protection of “secret sauce recipes” has always been around under the IL Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Noncompetes are attempts to prevent one from taking know-how acquired through experience, and going to a competitor. the two are different concepts. Noncompetes are very common with MDs, DDSs, and DVMs, but are prohibited for attorneys.
- Downstate - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 3:06 pm:
OW,
Too often I’ve tried to respond to your posts in a reasonable manner, providing facts and personal perspective. All too often, my posts are deleted. My response is respectful and without ranker, but provides (I believe) important perspective on the issue at hand.
Can we debate this without you deleting my posts?
- Been There - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 3:09 pm:
===while their competitors would love to know their “secret sauce”…..and would be happy to hire an employee to get it. It’s a conundrum.====
I haven’t read the bill but from the story it doesn’t sound like it would ban companies from requiring a non-disclosure contract. Pretty hard to prove but my guess is a lot of employees would be afraid to breach it.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 3:17 pm:
===you===
I’ve done no such thing.
If you have a retort now, you should comment as such.
To the post,
I do find it odd that Jimmy John’s had this clause, even back then.
Trade secrets to a Jimmy John’s sandwich that I can purchase and figure out ingredients, see how they make the sandwich, what specifically makes Jimmy John’s the double secret probation sandwich shop?
- JS Mill - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 3:59 pm:
=“secret sauce”=
My guess is it is either thousand Island dressing or mayo and ketchup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOM6Zd5oUsg
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 4:16 pm:
===There are whole television programs===
Not to mention YouTube and numerous food blogs.
===I’m involved with a company that has a novel food offering. ===
This is an awfully aggrandized way to say that you’re a Subway franchisee. I only specifically state Subway because they’re one of the more ridiculous examples of making their “sandwich artists” sign oppressive non-competes. Working at a Subway, McDonald’s, Burger King, or whatever shouldn’t prevent someone from being able to work in the fast food industry or in a more culinary oriented kitchen.
This is an especially ironic premise because places like McDonald’s specifically stole some of their signature items in order to compete in specific markets, hence how the Big Mac was intended to specifically copy a Big Boy Burgers offering, and they did it by just making a burger in their own kitchen that was like The Big Boy. It’s a sandwich.
Not every great idea or novelty gets copied, and some of the best things in the world never take off the way they should, like the Runza.
- Rudy’s teeth - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 4:20 pm:
Would like to learn about the back story for student housing at community colleges. Many students take classes, work part-time, and raise families. Not all students are in their twenties.
Also, individuals who live in CHA housing or have vouchers have tuition, books, and transportation paid through Partners in Education at City Colleges.
Don’t know if that is a practical solution as all in the city are accessible with public transportation.
- cermak_rd - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 4:44 pm:
“… companies fear more restrictions will put their proprietary information, client lists and employee retention efforts at risk”
OK client lists and proprietary information in the nature of legally protected secrets (e.g. Trade Secrets, copyrights, patents etc. ) are legitimate worries and protected via other means. Employee retention should absolutely play no role in this.
If you want to retain your employees, pay them well, offer good benefits, don’t be a jerk etc. all seem more reasonable than non-compete agreements.
- Mary - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 5:44 pm:
Rudy’s teeth - student housing at community colleges will do about as well as student housing at 4 year universities, TIF agreements, and the like - expensive boondoggles that will put taxpayers on the hook while elected school board members pretend at playing developer.
- Anon - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 8:57 pm:
As others have noted, the new law does not ban non-disclosure agreements. I believe the Jimmy Johns lawsuit even argued the existence of a valid non-disclosure provision rendered obsolete the need for a harsh non-compete.
- Anon - Monday, Aug 9, 21 @ 8:58 pm:
*Novel food offering* if it’s like Jimmy John’s, the employees at the counter would have no idea whats in any secret sauce. They just get the sauce delivered and make the sandwiches in front of customers.