The rule should be that they can make you not compete, but you must be compensated monthly at your salary level prior to departure.
A non compete without having to pay is having your cake and eating it to so to speak.
And as an employee, I prefer that noncompete has no effect. Even if I were paid during noncompete period, I would be outcompeted by other people who are working rather than being idle. It would set my career back.
How about if you get another job offer, your original employer has to either "buy you out" of the new job offer, or you allowed to take it?
I could imagine it poses some risk of gaming the system (ie, have your friends startup fake hire you at 2/5x and use that to bypass noncompete or get a huge raise) - but then the company's out is to not enforce their noncompete (which is essentially what CA enforces) so I think it's a nice "velvet handcuffs" option for employers.
It’s like people forget that we have a functioning legal system where a human can see through the bs.
> A non compete without having to pay is having your cake and eating it to so to speak.
Agreed. Noncompetes and NDAs have become standard boilerplate in job contracts despite being inappropriate in the vast majority of cases. In my opinion, it's an intimidation used by employers against employees: "we don't actually enforce this, unless you do things like leave us a negative review on GlassDoor".
Despite being unenforceable where I live, I know several people who have been threatened by their ex-employers. Even if such legal action is frivolous, most people don't have the time or money to spare fight it off, and employers know this. This relates back to the bargening inequality mentioned in another thread.
Not to mention employers already enforce non competes and don’t pay anything.