[idopmstuff]

> In the instance this change doesn't go through it is important to be aware that non-competes don't survive hardship tests.

This may be true in theory, but more often that not for the most vulnerable people it's not true in practice. The problem is that people have to be both aware that they can challenge a noncompete and willing to do so. That is, at a minimum, very time consuming, and if you're working a low-wage job, you probably aren't going to be practically able to fight a noncompete. If you get a new job and your old employer sends a threatening legal letter to your new employer, they're probably just going to fire you rather than help you fight it.

If the system put the burden on the employer to prove that a noncompete was valid before making any attempts to enforce it, the current system might work well. Unfortunately, the reality is that even totally unenforceable noncompetes are still effective most of the time - that's one reason you still see them put into contracts in places where they have no chance of surviving a legal challenge.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

To add to this, I know a person who had a job offer rescinded because the company he was going to didn't like the potential of non-compete enforcement by the company he was leaving. It's fortunate that it can (sometimes) be challenged successfully but in many unfortunate instances that won't be an option. The best case from my perspective is that these contracts are simply voided.

[tcmart14]

Thats my understanding of non-competes. It is really for the company to win in a court case. Its a threat to scare people in complying because most people don't have the war chest to fight it out. For most people, you can fight it, but your gonna go bankrupt. So it is often better to just cave in. The company will just drag it out so it costs you the entire time. Its more of a competition of who has the bigger war chest and the employer is usually the one with it.