> I don't understand how a company can have the authority to limit someone like this for 2 years after working there.

It's almost like the system in the US favours business over individuals. Na, that can't be it.

Silicon Valley has shown us that this doesn't necessarily really help businesses. It's an irrational fear-based scarcity-mentality behavior that actually harms businesses by ruining their talent ecosystems. You want employees to jump around and take on a variety of roles to gain experience and connections.

If most companies don't have non-competes that is better for everyone indeed. But there is no incentive for companies to be the only one not having non-competes. If you see employee mobility as the shared resource it is a tragedy of the commons. I think it would be better to mostly abolish noncompetes around the world as is already done in California. However as GitLab we have them in our contracts since it is in the interest of the company. It is a bit of a paradox.

Me either and I live in the UK.

In a previous job there was one in my contract (idiot boss put it in after he found a contract online) not realising that while a restrictive covenant can be enforced it is under very strict conditions (basically stopping you from buggering off and taking all the employers customers with you and some others).

Guy was a dick and told me he'd enforce the covenant (we didn't end it well, they where deeply scuzzy), I just laughed and said "I will see you in court then".

I was leaving to start my own company, not working with any of his former customers, not poaching any of his other staff (wouldn't have wanted them) and in a completely different industry so literally no overlap except we'd both be building things for the web.

I had my new company solicitor send him a letter basically saying "f* off and die" in legalese and he went away, last I heard he was bankrupt again (third time).

They can't in Europe unless they pay you. This is known as "right to work" and is drastically different from the american concept of "right to work" (which means that you can't be fired for not joining a union).

This is incorrect as it does not apply to all of Europe and even where it does apply usually doesn't require full pay. There are a variety of regulations listed here that limit non-compete clauses as many (most?) US states do, but not as much as California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Europe

2 years, wow! I'm in washington state, every tech company has a standard 1 year noncompete, but it's almost never used. I have considered trying to push this with my state leg. There's absolutely no reason we can't switch to the california style system here, and everywhere.

I suspect a lot of these do not hold up in court. In fact, I believe NY is very favorable to the employee in overly broad non-compete agreements.

The problem is that a low level employee doesn't have the money to fight something like this. The simple fact that they can be litigated is enough.

Would a company spend money to enforce it? With non poaches, worst thing i've seen was a threatening note from a lawyer. No one wants to spend the money to take it court.

Usually my answer is no. I sign them and then, personally, complete disregard them because I think it's highly unlikely a company would enforce it on a low level employee like myself. The fact that they could try is usually enough to scare smaller employers away from even trying though.

Most sentiment seems to be that they "would never hold up in court". Every once now and then a case does come up though http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/amazon-sues-ex-em...

I know at least one corporate attorney that says flipping burgers would be a breach of your non-compete as far as he's concerned, i.e. "we reserve the right to intimidate you"

it's probably worth testing the enforceability of that contract or the willingness of that media company to sue. Do they have a history of going after former employees? Does your fiance have really specific and special skills?