I don't sign non-competes as a developer, much less would I expect those in the service industry to sign one. That would be taking away their livelihood.

Both of these suggestions sound like a form of slavery. Employees are free to come and go as they choose. What they should not be able to do is poach specific clients. It happens all the time, though, and what exactly is to be gained from suing someone making $15/hour?

>What they should not be able to do is poach specific clients. //

I find your indignation interesting as this is exactly what the non-compete would be preventing - the subcontractor from working directly for the client that you (the main contractor) introduced them to.

I was thinking more about the main thrust of non-competes I've come across, which is that you're not allowed to compete in the same industry. I read an article a couple of years ago about hairstylists and other service industry workers being out of a job for 12 months because they'd been forced to sign non-competes.

Not poaching clients is a common clause though, apparently. I haven't really run across that clause because I don't have to power to solicit clients for my employers anyway.

Or get the people who need their places cleaned to include a non-circumvention clause as part of their initial signing up.

Those aren't necessarily legal (and might be ill-received in a region that doesn't want more unemployment); on the other hand, making use of the whole rolodex after leaving might be regulated as well.

California employers cannot restrict the livelihood of their current or former employees.