To the Editor:
It is a very satisfying part of my work as an assemblymember when a constituent comes to me with an issue, and I can introduce legislation to solve their very problem. This past spring, a constituent brought the issue of “training repayment agreement provisions” or TRAPs to my attention.

She is a licensed cosmetologist and aesthetician with over 20 years of experience. She was paid $14 an hour at a beauty salon. As a condition of employment, she was required to sign a contract to stay in her role for a year; otherwise, she would be sued for $4,000 for “training reimbursement” despite not receiving any training.

The “training” she did receive was working on a paying client and not bona fide training for which the employer paid out-of-pocket costs.

After several months on the job, she left due to the caustic chemicals being used and vaping on the premises — she is a cancer survivor. Soon after, she was hit with a $5,000 lawsuit, which included $1,000 beyond the amount set in the TRAP provision. She has been summoned to court in three jurisdictions four separate times.

Unfortunately, my constituent is just one of many workers in New York state who are held hostage by their employers through various types of employer-driven debt. Employers rely on restrictive contracts that act as de facto non-competes to lock these workers in debt, such as stay-or-pay contracts and TRAPs.

The use of TRAPs has grown substantially in recent years, stifling labor market competition and forcing workers to remain in jobs they prefer to leave. These predatory labor practices are common in numerous industries, including healthcare, trucking, aviation, retail, and service.

Often the amounts owed by the employees are many times higher than what they were paid. So TRAPs end up violating our minimum wage laws.

Because of my constituent’s story, I am proud to have introduced legislation (A06819A) that addresses this issue by clearly defining what contract terms have the effect of creating debt at work, prohibiting employers from requiring these provisions in their employment contracts, and allowing workers to enforce their rights in court.

New York is far behind other states in enacting legislation related to restrictive contracts. This year, Minnesota will join California, Oklahoma, and North Dakota in banning non-compete provisions altogether. Connecticut already bans TRAPs.

Recently, Karen Cacace, chief of the New York State Attorney General’s Labor Bureau, testified at a legislative hearing on non-compete agreements. She stated her office has received numerous complaints of TRAPs from New Yorkers.

In one example, an employer had a contract requiring a tattoo apprentice to pay back training costs if the apprentice left before the two-year term. When the worker left four months before the contract expired, the employer sent their former employee a bill for $15,000.

When addressing proposed solutions, Karen Cacace stated that her office supports a general ban on TRAPs due to their increased use by employers to restrict employee mobility.

Since introducing my legislation, I am proud that The Student Borrower Protection Center and the New York State Nurses Association have endorsed it. They both cited how TRAPs are being used in New York State to bind workers to their jobs and prevent them from leaving. NYSNA believes contractual financial penalties will only worsen over the next few years due to the exodus of nurses from the workforce.

As the Assembly Majority, we are obligated to follow in the footsteps of President Franklin Roosevelt, a progressive leader in building an economic New Deal that delivered for working people. The New York State Assembly would reaffirm that commitment by passing the anti-TRAPs legislation.

Phil Steck

State Assemblyman

Editor’s note: Phil Steck represents the 110th District in the New York State Assembly, which includes Colonie, Niskayuna, and parts of Guilderland and Schenectady.