I have never heard of an employer detaching a noncompete from the terms of employment, much less offering anything like $100k as a carrot. If some employers do this, then cool, but I don’t find a lot of merit in arguing about whether it’s OK to do something that almost nobody does.
Many many employers attach noncompetes to the terms of employment, won’t modify them for anyone and have the leverage to make even developers sign it (the job market’s good, but it’s not that good). That’s a bad state of affairs, and it really seems like employers won’t drop this unless compelled to, we aren’t going to be able to negotiate them into the deal you’re describing.
My point is that I think the law should only honor non-competes that are in that form.
This is how California's law actually works.... non-competes are only allowed if they are paid in this way.
> sign a contract for $100,000 that you won’t work in field x for 2 years
Wow, sign me up!
It could be a really bad deal if you're basically throwing away 2 years of your career when you have maximum bargaining power
Most people are not in the position to take a couple years off for $100K or to work, for almost certainly lower pay, in an unrelated field assuming they can find a professional job.
If it isn't worth it to the company to pay, then they should let the person work for a competitor.
I'd like to over you a job. It pays $50K/yr with an optional $100K/yr for a noncompete agreement. My competitor is offering $140K/yr.
The unfair thing is making it just a part of the standard employment contract.