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.
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.