An agreement between a big company and an individual really isn't a case of "consenting adults". The company has too much power. In the case of top officers, th

An agreement between a big company and an individual really isn't a case of "consenting adults". The company has too much power. In the case of top officers, then I agree, it should be negotable. Put another way the choices are 1) negotiated noncompete 2) noncompete is a given 3) noncompete forbidden We now have (2). In theory (1) would be better. (3) is bad for the same reasons that (2) is. But more people benefit from (3), so this legislation could be an improvement. Re. (1), if a company had to pay me to not compete in the future, I wonder what it would really be worth to them? I bet it's worth more to the individual. Many years ago I saw the managers at a former employer prevent an ex-employee from taking a new job based on one of these agreements. They were not really concerned about the competition. They wanted to teach him, and the rest of us, a lesson.