You make good points, but I'm not sure this necessarily has an impact on the scenario you've described. I've seen (full disclosure, European) job contracts that have both a non-compete and a requirement to pay the company back part of the money they spent training you - it's something like 2/3 if you quit within a year, 1/3 after 2 years, 1/4 after 3 years, and nothing after 4. Companies often offer to pay these fines when they really want to hire you. There may also be obligations of providing notice to the company. All this is a lot more reasonable than "you don't get to work for a year" - what good does that do?
I also don't think the "voluntarily" justifies this sort of thing. I might 'voluntarily' enter into an agreement to never work again in my life, if I were desperate enough for a job because I was starving or something - but should that be legally enforceable? It's an extreme example, to be sure, but I'm just addressing the point that just because I 'knowingly and voluntarily' enter into an abusive contract should make it legally enforceable. Companies generally have a position of power against their employees.
I also don't think the "voluntarily" justifies this sort of thing. I might 'voluntarily' enter into an agreement to never work again in my life ... It's an extreme example, to be sure,
It's not an extreme example because courts have ruled non-compete has to be a reasonable time frame (even in the worst state it's like 2 years max). And the basis for this is all contracts must have compensation for the terms; if you don't get something of reasonable value from the contract then it's invalid. So if you were to make an agreement to never work again the other party would have to pay you a fair amount to not work.
I think any argument against non-compete would have to be the same as against fixed-length contracts. If you commit to work a full school term for instance you can't just decide to switch schools in the middle of the year; they're relying on the commitment you made. A movie actor that commits to do a sequel, is that supposed to be unfair because now they're 'forced' to do a second movie against their will?
Same thing with non-compete. You made a legal commitment and they compensated you for it with a higher salary, job security, or whatever made you decide to accept the job.
It can be abusive, like for instance a low-skilled job at landscaping company having a non-compete. They don't need a specific person's skills, they're not irreplaceable. The company just wants to lock them in without giving anything back to the workers. This kind of non-compete should be prohibited, but not all of them.
You make good points, but I'm not sure this necessarily has an impact on the scenario you've described. I've seen (full disclosure, European) job contracts that have both a non-compete and a requirement to pay the company back part of the money they spent training you - it's something like 2/3 if you quit within a year, 1/3 after 2 years, 1/4 after 3 years, and nothing after 4. Companies often offer to pay these fines when they really want to hire you. There may also be obligations of providing notice to the company. All this is a lot more reasonable than "you don't get to work for a year" - what good does that do?
I also don't think the "voluntarily" justifies this sort of thing. I might 'voluntarily' enter into an agreement to never work again in my life, if I were desperate enough for a job because I was starving or something - but should that be legally enforceable? It's an extreme example, to be sure, but I'm just addressing the point that just because I 'knowingly and voluntarily' enter into an abusive contract should make it legally enforceable. Companies generally have a position of power against their employees.
It's not an extreme example because courts have ruled non-compete has to be a reasonable time frame (even in the worst state it's like 2 years max). And the basis for this is all contracts must have compensation for the terms; if you don't get something of reasonable value from the contract then it's invalid. So if you were to make an agreement to never work again the other party would have to pay you a fair amount to not work.
I think any argument against non-compete would have to be the same as against fixed-length contracts. If you commit to work a full school term for instance you can't just decide to switch schools in the middle of the year; they're relying on the commitment you made. A movie actor that commits to do a sequel, is that supposed to be unfair because now they're 'forced' to do a second movie against their will?
Same thing with non-compete. You made a legal commitment and they compensated you for it with a higher salary, job security, or whatever made you decide to accept the job.
It can be abusive, like for instance a low-skilled job at landscaping company having a non-compete. They don't need a specific person's skills, they're not irreplaceable. The company just wants to lock them in without giving anything back to the workers. This kind of non-compete should be prohibited, but not all of them.