Well, I completely agree that it doesn't go far enough (that's Massachusetts for you...) but it's a start. The article also specifies that laid-off workers are exempt.
From a lawmaking perspective, it can be construed as "we looked at the issue, and found low-level employees to be worthy of protection, but nobody else."
> The article also specifies that laid-off workers are exempt.
Even in states where non-competes are generally enforceable, courts are often reluctant to enforce them against laid-off employees.
But guess what? Big corporations have little interest in enforcing non-competes against poorly performing employees.
Take a look at the article I linked elsewhere, to see what type of employees Amazon chooses to selectively target for non-compete violations. They are the well-performing employees who jumped ship for a better opportunity elsewhere. Their goal is to discourage this behavior, so they don't risk losing their best employees or (heavens forbid!) paying them their market value.
I don't know of a single case where they sued a poorly-performing, fired, or laid off employee.
I think a political perspective is probably more relevant/accurate which would likely be along the lines of "we looked at the issue, and protecting low-level employees is the most we could do and still get the bill passed"
Obviously large employers have vested interests in protecting non-competes and also have the lobbying budgets to successfully oppose the passage of stronger individual protection from non-competes
> Daniel McKinnon, who had been a hairstylist in Norwell, Mass., lost a court battle with his former employer who claimed that Mr. McKinnon had violated the terms of his agreement when he went to work at a nearby salon. Mr. McKinnon said that he did not think the original restriction — to wait at least 12 months before working at any salon in nearby towns — still applied because he had been fired after years of friction with the manager there. Shortly after being fired, he went to work at a nearby salon.
> But a judge issued an injunction ordering him to stop working at his new employer.
> “It was pretty lousy that you would take away someone’s livelihood like that,” said Mr. McKinnon, who for the following year lived off jobless benefits of $300 a week. “I almost lost my truck. I almost lost my apartment. Almost everything came sweeping out from under me.”