Every single contract I have ever signed had this clause in it, and it’s never kept me from working. They don’t actually sue you, and for those that it did happen, the contract was thrown out as being too broad.
So to be clear: you are in no way arguing for the value of Non-Compete agreements. You are saying that at worst this does absolutely nothing (prevents clauses that are unenforceable) but is harmless. At best it prevents a chilling effect discouraging people from looking for different employment.
The argument I did make is the non-competes were never there to "retain talent. Imo this disproportionately helps executives make more money and that’s why it’s being passed.
A non-compete is, in essence, a clause that dictates whether a worker can find employment (or create a product) that directly competes with their employer—even if they aren’t working for them anymore. Typically, these will last around six months to a year after the end of employment, but they can last longer.
Six months to a year after employment is hardly “at the same time.”
So to be clear: you are in no way arguing for the value of Non-Compete agreements. You are saying that at worst this does absolutely nothing (prevents clauses that are unenforceable) but is harmless. At best it prevents a chilling effect discouraging people from looking for different employment.
I don’t see the problem here.
The argument I did make is the non-competes were never there to "retain talent. Imo this disproportionately helps executives make more money and that’s why it’s being passed.
Then why were they there?
To prevent people from being paid by multiple companies at the same time, which is a thing only execs do…
Six months to a year after employment is hardly “at the same time.”