Would previous employers not look to enforce it more in more specialist roles then? If you are a specialist off to work for a competitior challenge is much more?
You can't say for sure. The more restrictive it feels that less likely it would be enforceable.
But the main proviso is they cannot make you unemployable or destitute, type situation.
The more specialist the role the harder it is to avoid that situation.
I work in an industry with 3 main players, as such there is always some competition for the unique roles between the 3 businesses. (There are also smaller players but generally people want to work for one of the three)
As such the unique roles are not only basically vastly overpaid, but they have long notice periods.
We recognise that a non compete would almost certainly not pass a legal challenge. As such we make sure we pay them well, offer benefits out of line with their seniority (compared to rest of the business) but the main defence is long notice periods.
Should one be leaving to go to a competitor we almost immediate put them on garden leave, so in effect we make sure they cannot be legally speaking to our customers, have access to the more confidential parts of out business etc
The one thing that is stressed really heavily is that if we become aware of any communication or work taking place during this garden leave we will sue for damages.
Since damages could easily be into millions due to the nature of the roles its unheard of of any of them breaching their garden leave conditions.
Oh the other thing we do have is a non disclosure type clause that states any specific knowledge you have received during your employ with us is and remains our property and any disclosure of use of any of that information outside our company will be considered theft of IP (intellectual property) and as such will be liable to damages.
This has been legally reviewed and deemed enforceable. This IMO is the best way to insert non compete into specialists contracts. IE it breaks down unique info, such as specifics about customers accounts etc, and general knowledge that someone of that position would be expected to know.
Damages themselves are not a defence. If I steal the best designer of engines from you to work in my business then the expectation is I will do better and you will do worse. The issue in regards damages is using the employment of that designer to try to steal my IP.
You apply the same thought process to eg a hairdresser. You can't take my customers by taking my hairdresser, but I cannot stop that hairdresser eg cutting peoples hair that were my customers, but the customer needs to choose to move, not be poached.
Hence why with the hairdresser you wouldn't try to stop them cutting hair (unreasonable), but you would try to limit the area they did so in (reasonable as long as not excessive), e.g. they cannot rent the shop next door and setup a competing business (until their non compete timing expires which is one of the other angles, the length of the clause).
