Do you see any negative consequences in states that have banned them almost entirely, such as California?
Do you see any negative consequences in states that have banned them almost entirely, such as California?
I know of one case (in which I am actually mostly sympathetic to the individual bound by the non-compete) in which that's actually exactly what happened.
We can all see why the company wants the clause, but it's equally clear that it's in society's interest to not allow it.
Reminder that the question was "what are good reasons...", which suggests that not everyone knows why the company wants them, unless you assume all companies are inherently evil which is not reasonable. They invest in their brand. Employees get the benefit of that to help establish their own brand. And then they can take that brand elsewhere to the detriment of the original investor.