Completely agree. I once worked for a large company that was purchased by another large company. The new large company wanted everyone to sign non-competes. I responded that I would only sign if they added that I would be paid throughout the non-compete timeframe. Oddly enough, I never heard anything else about it.

On the other hand, I was once in the same position. (The acquiring company was actually one of the most vocal backers of non-competes in their state over the years.) It was made clear that we either signed or we'd be immediately terminated.

I did sign. It was actually written narrowly enough that I didn't expect it would be a problem. And it wasn't when I left fairly shortly thereafter.

Many companies, particularly in areas like finance, or in C levels of management, will do this, paying employees for anywhere from a month to a year to not work. I’m not sure how much they can be enforced during that period, but as far as I’m aware the amounts of money are usually large enough for there to not be much of a problem enforcing them.

Yeah, this is euphemistically called "gardening leave" in the U.K, and is normally full salary.

Former U.K. worker and lawyer: Gardening leave for sure happens, but basic non-competes (or "restrictive covenants" as they get called over there) without any kind of remuneration are fairly common in U.K. employment contracts for skilled workers too.

Successful enforcement is almost always a question for a court to decide, and many times an employer simply won't bother trying, but provided the employer can demonstrate a business interest to protect, the restriction isn't too widely defined and that the time scale is not "unreasonable" they stand a good chance of succeeding. I'm by no means endorsing this - it simply is what it always has been in the UK for a long time now.

But in the UK you cant be restricted from plying your trade which it only some highly paid senior individuals and you MUST be paid for it this is from the GC of an organisation specializing in hr/ir issues

Totally agree. I know some people who this has happened to, and it's the only way I support the concept of a non- compete.

That seems reasonable, but it would be potentially costly and so it's unlikely to happen.

It absolutely DOES happen for C-level execs - I've been at a company where it happened and the (IMO extreme) payout was revealed in the S-1 filing when the company IPOed. It's yet another example where the rules at the top are created specifically to benefit them at the expense of everyone else.

Its because the c level execs have the resources to hire lawyers to exercise their rights