Those sorts of agreements are generally still allowed with these anti non-compete laws. If there is a specific non-compete contract that is signed, with money being paid for it directly, that is fine. That is a normal contract where both sides trade something of value.

The types that are banned are ones that set the restriction as a part of a normal employment contract, where there is no specific compensation given for accepting the non-compete and where the employee can't decide to abandon the non-compete in return for not getting the extra money.

▲

mzi 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, those contracts are not valid here as the right to livelihood will trump that contract.

So even if you sign that clause you are not bound by it.

	▲	bombcar 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The problem is allowing companies to do contracts that their lawyers know are null and void (like the above) but the employee may not know. Employees thinking they are subject to legal penalties/fight due to a non-enforceable non-compete gets the company 90% of what they want, anyway, and so to prevent that they should be strongly punished.
	▲	cortesoft 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Right, the way it would work is that you are getting some sort of payment every month for not competing. If you choose to start competing, those payments stop. You can choose to stop the non-compete at any time, you are just giving up that income stream.
	▲	bsder 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> So even if you sign that clause you are not bound by it. Jimmy John's was making its low-level employees sign non-competes, for example. This was ridiculous on its face, and probably wouldn't hold up in court. However, the people affected by it were least able to take it to court.