[duskwuff]

Precisely. And, at least in the US, any contract which makes it impossible for a worker to take a new job in their field is extremely likely to be found unconscionable. It doesn't matter whether the contract is cast as a non-compete or as a NDA; if its effect is to say "you must work for us, or not at all", it's unlikely to hold up.

[ghaff]

Maybe. I've known companies in the IT industry that took a very hard line on non-competes. Whether they won in court, I don't know. But I've know people who took a year off rather than involving the lawyers. Small pretty well-defined segment of the industry and a couple of the big players apparently did take it seriously. (Never worked for either.)

[const_cast]

This is exactly what the company is hoping for. In actuality, you can put literally anything in a contract. Sell your first born baby, sacrifice a goat, whatever. Signing a piece of paper doesn't make it true or required.

Companies are really banking on people making the value decision that doing the legal stuff is too much work, time, and money, so they're hoping for self-enforcement. It's the same reason we still see companies commonly doing things like terminating employees before maternity leave. They know a new mother (who is now jobless) isn't going to bother with the trouble of a potentially multi-year wrongful termination suit.

[ghaff]

From what little I know, they were reasonably well-compensated people and they were just in a position to say, whatever. I'll just take a 6 month vacation or whatever and start things anew rather than have a court fight. Which I'd probably do as well.

"Just semi-retiring" is a pretty sensible option at some point.

[lazide]

Just because the employer ‘takes it seriously’ doesn’t mean the court won’t laugh at them.

In my experience, the more the employer puts up a show, the more unenforceable it is.

[ghaff]

As I say, no personal experience. But people I know took fairly serious actions because of the threat.

[lazide]

That is why they do it.