I think open source, the internet, and Stable Diffusion have shown that the diffusion of knowledge is generally in the public interest. I really think judges made a serious mistake when they stopped treating non-compete clauses as unlawful prior restraints on trade. They are not remotely in the public interest.
That is the point. It is a sincere suggestion, because it would force companies to only seek out a non-compete in the case where the employees knowledge is valuable enough to warrant subsidizing their extended vacation.
And this does happen in the finance industry. Some businesses do in fact do this.
They were flabbergasted that I wanted compensation in exchange for essentially cutting myself off from a wide swath of employment opportunities.
“Aren’t you our slave to do with as we see fit!?” was very much the attitude that I was getting.
I kind of want to see what would happen if states passed laws saying that all non-compete clauses contained an implicit agreement that the employee be paid their entire salary (including bonuses) for the pro-rated duration of the non-compete and that such clauses can be triggered by either party.
We all know the value of a non-compete clause is $0 for most employees. Hell, they are probably most effective at bullying unproductive workers who hate their jobs into staying on too long, thus might actually be a net negative for employers.
I've witnessed this on the other end. Someone was being pressured to engage in sales that would violate her non-compete that was openly discussed during the hiring phase. When she essentially said, "Sure, I have no problem breaking it as long as you put it in writing that you'll cover any legal fees" suddenly the new employer didn't think sales in that region were quite as important.