When a Worker Protection Bill Leaves Workers Behind

Friends and Neighbors,

With my town meeting week report, I identified an amendment I had introduced that would have extended protections against non-compete agreements to teachers in our public schools. I am providing an update to that process.

During the past several weeks, the House considered H.205, a bill designed to prohibit non-compete agreements in Vermont. Non-compete agreements restrict workers from taking jobs with other employers, even after they leave a position. These agreements limit worker mobility, suppress wages, and distort labor markets by giving employers leverage over employees who might otherwise pursue better opportunities.

For those reasons, H.205 was an important and labor-friendly bill. I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development for bringing the bill forward, and to Burlington’s own Representative Abbey Duke for presenting it on the floor. Representative Duke worked thoughtfully and in good faith to keep the bill moving even as complicated questions emerged during the debate.

Unfortunately, the bill ultimately stalled and was referred back to committee on yesterday’s crossover deadline, which effectively ends its path for this legislative session, unless we are able to add the entire bill as an amendment to another piece of legislation.

To understand why this occured, it is important to understand a piece of Vermont law that stood in the way.

A 100+ Year Old Statute

More than a century ago, Vermont adopted a statute that reads:

“A teacher under contract to teach in a public school who fails, without just cause, to complete the term for which the teacher contracted to teach shall be disqualified to teach in any public school for the remainder of the school year.”

This language was written at a time when the teaching profession was almost exclusively women. It reflects a worldview steeped in the patriarchy of that era. A view that expected women to remain bound to their positions and discouraged professional mobility.

Today, the teaching workforce in Vermont is still approximately 75 percent women. That makes this issue not only a labor question, but also an equity issue.

While the statute may once have been intended to promote stability in schools, it has evolved in practice into something else entirely. And while some would have us believe that this is about mid-contract departures, this is simply not the case and not the concern surrounding continued reliance on the archaic statute.

A De Facto Non-Compete

Under Vermont law, school districts must offer teacher contracts on or before April 15. Teachers then have only two weeks to decide whether to sign a contract that begins on July 1.

Once that contract is signed, the statute above is often used to prevent teachers from applying for or interviewing for positions in other districts. In practice, this creates a two-week window for teachers to consider their options before vacancies across the state have even been fully posted.

In effect, this century-old statute functions as a de facto non-compete agreement.

During the process of advocating for my amendment, I heard numerous stories from educators describing how aggressively this statute has been used to limit their professional mobility.

A Worker Protection Bill That Excluded Teachers

H.205 would have prohibited non-compete agreements for workers across Vermont. But because of the statute described above, the bill was written to exclude teachers. From a labor perspective, that created a serious problem.

If we agree that non-compete agreements suppress wages and restrict worker mobility (and I do), it is difficult to justify eliminating them for nearly every sector of the workforce while leaving teachers as the lone exception.

Protecting worker mobility should apply to all workers. Firefighters, nurses, higher education workers, engineers, and every other worker in Vermont has the freedom to leave their job and seek employment elsewhere within their field. Teachers do not.

Worker Solidarity and the Legislative Process

When this issue came to light, labor advocates across Vermont responded in a remarkable way. Instead of advocating to pass the bill regardless of this inconsistency, they showed up to say something far more powerful. We move forward together or not at all.

I am incredibly proud of the labor advocates who stood firm on this principle. It was a master class in worker solidarity.

Labor advocates did not kill this bill. They insisted that the protections it offered should apply consistently to all sectors, including teachers.

Similarly, my amendment did not kill the bill.

Floor amendments are a normal part of the legislative process. When an amendment is offered, the full chamber should have the opportunity to debate the merits of that amendment and then vote. That is exactly how the process is designed to work. Had the full chamber opted to vote against my amendment, we would still have been able to vote on the original bill.

In this case, however, the bill was referred back to committee rather than allowing that debate to happen.

The Real Obstacle

Let’s stay honest about what happened.

Advocates representing school boards, superintendents, and principals refused to negotiate meaningful changes to a statute that gives management extraordinary leverage over teachers.

Instead of acknowledging how this system excludes teachers from worker protections available to nearly every other profession, they doubled down on preserving that control.

No other state in New England uses this approach.

If we are serious about addressing teacher shortages, we should also be examining the broader climate we have created for educators and the ways that climate affects recruitment and retention.

Ultimately, strengthening the profession will require all of us — legislators, administrators, and communities — to ensure that Vermont schools are places where new teachers want to begin their careers and experienced teachers want to remain. Binding teachers to a district and impeding their ability to choose another district moves us in the wrong direction.

Where We Go From Here

The conversation about worker mobility is not over.

The principle behind H.205 remains sound. All workers should be free to pursue better opportunities without being constrained by non-compete agreements.

When Vermont takes up that issue again, we should ensure that those protections apply to every worker, including teachers.

As always, please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions, concerns, or dialogue.

Troy