[JohnFen]

Noncompetes are an attempt by companies to deny potential resources to their competitors. Nothing more or less than that.

That's why they're unethical -- they're using a former employee as a kind of cannon fodder in a business war.

[rgbrenner]

If that’s all they were, then we would have never seen companies create broad non competes that deprive a person of their livelihood.

I agree that’s one purpose, but I think another is to penalize the employee for leaving, discouraging them from doing so… and as a result increasing retention and/or reducing the pressure on the company to deliver increased benefits and wages in the future.

[JohnFen]

Yes, this is an excellent point.

Interestingly, when I am presented with an employment contract, there are two things that often appear and that I always require to be removed: noncompete clauses and wording that assigns the rights to all of the work I do (even work that does not use my employer's time, resources, or knowledge) to my employer.

I have never once had an employer refuse to remove or modify those terms, but a couple of times it took a bit of negotiation to get there.

[sonotathrowaway]

Jimmy John’s forced fast food employees to sign non-competes.

The labor pool of potential fast food workers is so vast, and the number of employees is so vast that it’s very clear these non competes were intended to threaten workers and suppress wages.