Then maybe employers should have only used them for the handful of employees where they would actually be beneficial instead of making them a standard term of employment for everyone.
Instead they abused the concept so much they made it so the government said they don't get to use it anymore. Hard to feel much pity about that.
As if all employers were the same. But you shouldn't feel pity for them, you should feel regret for the oncoming mediocrity that always follows trying to protect people from being able to make poor choices.
If you're American you've benefitted from the federal system where that kind work was done in other more free market states. You may not notice the mediocrity since you're used to it and don't know the difference, but the whole country will be like that.
Non-competes have been non-enforceable in California for decades, including during Silicon Valley's Golden Age. Indeed much of the innovation during that period was from high-ranking engineers quitting their jobs at some larger chip manufacturer or software vendor and doing the thing they wanted to do but were prevented from doing at the bigger company they worked for.
If you ever played a NES or Atari 2600 you benefitted from this, because the lead engineer of the 6502 microprocessor which powers both was a former Motorola computer engineer who worked on their 6800 microprocessor, and when he went on to work at MOS on the 6502 he hired a bunch of his former Motorola colleagues to design and produce it based on ideas Motorola didn't want to pursue.
Then maybe employers should have only used them for the handful of employees where they would actually be beneficial instead of making them a standard term of employment for everyone.
Instead they abused the concept so much they made it so the government said they don't get to use it anymore. Hard to feel much pity about that.
As if all employers were the same. But you shouldn't feel pity for them, you should feel regret for the oncoming mediocrity that always follows trying to protect people from being able to make poor choices.
I've spent most of my career working for companies in jurisdictions where non-competes are legally unenforceable, so I doubt much will change for me.
If you're American you've benefitted from the federal system where that kind work was done in other more free market states. You may not notice the mediocrity since you're used to it and don't know the difference, but the whole country will be like that.
Non-competes have been non-enforceable in California for decades, including during Silicon Valley's Golden Age. Indeed much of the innovation during that period was from high-ranking engineers quitting their jobs at some larger chip manufacturer or software vendor and doing the thing they wanted to do but were prevented from doing at the bigger company they worked for.
If you ever played a NES or Atari 2600 you benefitted from this, because the lead engineer of the 6502 microprocessor which powers both was a former Motorola computer engineer who worked on their 6800 microprocessor, and when he went on to work at MOS on the 6502 he hired a bunch of his former Motorola colleagues to design and produce it based on ideas Motorola didn't want to pursue.
If that's "mediocrity" than I'll gladly take it.