[Dannymetconan]

I think it is. Employers love to include whatever they can in a contract.

Non competes in Canada and the EU are generally not enforceable but you see them regularly. Why should this line be any different.

Edit: which -> why

[lisasays]

Which should this line be any different?

Because it most definitely is not about non-compete agreements in the usual (post-employment) sense.

You understand that, right?

[Dannymetconan]

I understand the difference. Most jobs would like to own your 24/7 for minimum wage. They can also have clauses about discussing pay or other gray / illegal points. Just because you've signed it doesn't mean much to me.

If you're meeting their expectations it's none of their business in my opinion.

[lisasays]

Don't know what to tell you other than "Sorry, but this isn't how contracts work".

But hey -- you're quite welcome to believe otherwise, of course -- and to throw yourself against the wheels of the legal system on the basis of your "opinion" of how they ought to work, if you like. It's a free country, after all.

[Dannymetconan]

They work based on what someone is prepared to enforce and the laws of the country they try to enforce it in. Having it written and signed isn't some magic catch all.

I'm sure they can fire you but it seems to be "at will" employment in most of the US anyway.

In Ireland and Canada such a clause would likely fall under being "unreasonable" for low paid employees. Similar to how a "non-compete" is not worth the paper it's written on (excluding when direct financial compensation is paid. Eg gardening leave).