I'm glad that non-competes are being looked at with a stink-eye, I feel it's bullshit to ask someone to sign away their right to use their skills to make a living in exchange for...using their skills to make a living.

"If I can't have you, nobody can" is the long and short of a non-compete IMO, I don't feel that's an acceptable condition in any relationship.

Maybe I misunderstand what a non-compete is, but it seems relatively straightforward. I don't think an employer is entitled to that kind of benefit, especially considering loyalty to an employer is usually rewarded with indifference at best.

In 2013 I turned down a job in Philadelphia, with a company who was headquartered in Boston. They wanted me to sign a 1yr non-compete with the stipulation that I wouldn't work for a company sold similar products within a +/- 30% wholesale cost of their product. After two trans-continental flights, interviews etc, I said no because of the NC. The recruiter flipped over it. He basically yelled at me "you're going to come work with us, we'll train you, then you'll go somewhere else?"

No. I'm mid-career. I have skills you want. You're not training me. Your company is not an engineering school. I'll leave because I might not like working for you, or living where your company's office is. It's my life, not yours.

Decided to stay in California where this wouldn't ever even be a question that would come up.

That's almost as ridiculous as parents asking their kids for a lifelong non-compete in the same field as them.

I'm glad you did that. It shows principle. You may have been able to negotiate it out but the fact that they wanted it shows you a good deal about the company character.

It was a privilege I had and exercised. I later found out that the company was notorious for pursing violators of their NC, and sort of well-known about it in my industry- which has companies from 1-person shops to multinationals, all operating within the same price point (food and beverage). So the NC was absolutely insane.