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.
I think you may be misinformed as to what a non-compete agreement is. For example, when I worked for leaf filter, I had to sign a non-compete agreement that stated I couldn’t/wouldn’t work in the gutter protection industry for 6-12 months after leaving their company. Was it too broad to enforce and just their to keep anybody with a working brain from taking their service and providing it for cheaper? Yes. Did it work, effectively driving down competition and allowing them to effectively pigeonhole the US market? Also yes.
Depending on which employer you move to, you can still be sued regardless of non-competes, happens all the time where non-competes don’t exist (California). You can still receive a cease and desist depending on what you have worked on and where you are working now based on the IP regulations and non-disclosures, so this does nothing (and nobody in the industry is actually celebrating this except a few executives where the was enforceable).
I’ve signed dozens of these contracts, I know how they affect people, I know what they mean and how they are used.
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…
I think you may be misinformed as to what a non-compete agreement is. For example, when I worked for leaf filter, I had to sign a non-compete agreement that stated I couldn’t/wouldn’t work in the gutter protection industry for 6-12 months after leaving their company. Was it too broad to enforce and just their to keep anybody with a working brain from taking their service and providing it for cheaper? Yes. Did it work, effectively driving down competition and allowing them to effectively pigeonhole the US market? Also yes.
Depending on which employer you move to, you can still be sued regardless of non-competes, happens all the time where non-competes don’t exist (California). You can still receive a cease and desist depending on what you have worked on and where you are working now based on the IP regulations and non-disclosures, so this does nothing (and nobody in the industry is actually celebrating this except a few executives where the was enforceable).
I’ve signed dozens of these contracts, I know how they affect people, I know what they mean and how they are used.
Six months to a year after employment is hardly “at the same time.”