The way I look at a job is you get paid three ways.
1. Money.
2. Skills and Knowledge.
3. Career Contacts.
With non-competes a company is trying to screw you out of #2 and 3.
1. Money.
2. Skills and Knowledge.
3. Career Contacts.
With non-competes a company is trying to screw you out of #2 and 3.
The argument whether to ban non-competes should be rooted in the practical applications of the clause. Highly skilled, in-demand workers have the power and financial safety to negotiate a non-compete clause.
The question is when the power dynamic between employer and employee is heavily skewed yowards the employer, can they abuse this imbalance to force non-competes as a market equilibrium.
For example, for a person struggling financially, the slightly higher salary may be a short-term requirement, while the non-compete ruins their long-term prospects.
i suspect the employer / (healthcareinsurer if in US) imbalance is really the core issue.
In medical research ethics, informed consent acknowledges the imbalance. I think e.g. CA unenforcement of non-compete does a similar job.
(I am also a worker bee and benefit from non-enforcement, so take my input for the electrons they're based on.)