This is unfortunately not true, at the very least in Spain and the UK (that I know of) they are legal - although more regulated in written and in practice (to certain extents) than the Wild West that seems to be most of the US.
I find this position reasonable, non-competes are an extra burden on the employee so they should be paid for.
This is actually a reason why you can not, for example, enforce something that is given freely. E.g. I give you a contract where I promise you to give you my house for free. If I change later my mind, in many jurisdictions you could not force me to write over my house since there is not "arms length". It is something for nothing.
[0]"Performance of existing duties is not good consideration" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration
[1]"The very basic requirements are that the non-compete must (1) be in writing; (2) be part of an employment contract; (3) be based on valuable consideration; (4) be reasonable in scope of time and of territory; (5) not be against public policy." - https://lincolnderr.com/is-my-non-compete-enforceable/
[2]”One of the most common reasons that courts refuse to enforce Non-Competes is that employers make the mistake of obtaining the agreement from an already-hired employee without providing the employee with anything of value in return. Generally, such agreements are unenforceable because the employee did not receive any additional “consideration.”" - https://macelree.com/the-top-10-mistakes-with-non-competitio...
Sure, for some people, 18 months off at half pay or so might seem like a pretty sweet deal. It certainly isn't for everyone.
It can be paid "while you are employed", which becomes a notable point of friction in contracts where part of your negotiated gross salary suddenly appears assigned for that purpose instead.
Things may get funny because at termination the company may have in fact paid only a part of the compensation that the agreed period would require. What happens then? Is the period reduced proportionally? Is the non-compete voided entirely? Moreover, the contract is binding both ways, which means at termination the employee might require the employer to honor their side and pay for the entire period regardless if the employer never intended to enforce it. Most of those quirks have not been tested to my knowledge, but it would be fun to watch.
You can write anything you want into a contract. Even that you are obligated to give BJs until the end of your life to your previous employer. Good luck trying to enforce this in court. A shitty non compete? I would tell my previous employer "go sue me". A friend actually had this problem and he met with his previous employer and told them: "Look, I don't care what you want, I will keep working for my new employer. If you don't like that you can pay me the same amount of money and I sit a home and do nothing." They passed.
The enforcement is them dragging it out in court for as long as it takes to bankrupt you.
Amazon has a large vested interest in retaining these clauses and wielding them as a weapon. To the extent that only a few upper employees may have the resources to fight back long enough to avoid being destroyed.
If your attorney bill is one million dollars, you are probably bankrupt and destitute.
If the company loses, and they have to pay their attorney one million, and your attorney one million, and maybe a few hundred grand of lost wages for you, that's still absolutely nothing for them. Pocket change. It will not materially affect their budget.
Do you? Does your new employer like you enough to pay for attorneys?
Since law firms often have multiple offices, a common trick is to be officially employed at a far-away office while mostly working at home and sometimes "visiting" the nearby office. For the first 12 months.
Mentioning that the reason you left might have been because you were being sexually harassed probably deflects some threats, but these things rarely get as far as a public court so it's anyone's guess what gets mentioned in private in such cases. I have absolutely no idea how the damages would be calculated if enforcement of a restrictive covenant did get as far as a court. It's certainly an interesting question. Perhaps for an ensurer if people need to ensure against it.
You can still sue for wrongful termination but the total amount you are able to recover is limited to 1 month salary for each year worked at the firm?
I don’t know what your Spanish dude did. Most of the generic cut-and-paste clauses you find around are utterly unenforceable.