The now cost for the employer thing is if by the employee refraining from taking certain offers after they leave because they’re concerned about the costs of being sued and the possibility of losing the case because they could have found “gainful employment” (just not that specific case).

The mere risk of being sued and losing the case leads the ex-employer to refrain from taking certain jobs, providing the ex-employee with benefits at now cost.

When the law is crystal clear that non-competes are only valid if paid for, there is no such threat hanging over the ex-employee (as not only would the ex-employer see its case summary thrown out if they took it to court, they would actually pay all the legal costs of the ex-employee) hence the ex-employee has zero pressure in their choice of future employeers.

It’s the difference between a non-compete being a genuine risk for an ex-employee if broken versus being no risk whatsoever (literally worth less than the paper its written on).

That said I totally agree that when one is in a position to do so (which by now I personally am), just refuse to sign the non-compete.

(Mind you, I was once pushed to sign one with an “or else we will withdraw our job offer” threat and I pretty much started looking for another job then, without them even having an hint that was going on, taking my time and being chosy, and 11 months later, after having become pretty essential to the team, I had something much better and just dumped them with a “You chose to make it an adversarial relationship from the start, so now I don’t really care about what my leaving with the minimum notice will do to your projects”. Funny enough I later found that in this country non-competes were worthless if not paid, so all that shit they pulled was ultimatelly a net loss for them).