The problem, is the core of non-compete acts against the public interest and public policy as a general statement. There is a strong preference to allow an individual use their abilities and talents freely and not be constrained by the existence of a contract prohibiting such free movement of labor.
A non-compete clause can violate the public interest fairly easily. Regardless of the approach taken by the state statutes, non-compete agreements must be carefully written. For example. In Colorado, unless a non-compete falls within four narrow categories the agreement is void. For Michigan, the question is if the non-compete is reasonable. However, Courts have limited reasonableness to small geographic areas and and reduced the length of time. Thus, unless the non-compete agreement is consistent with state law, which does not look favorably on removing the ability of an individual to work, the agreement will be void as a matter of law.
A non-compete clause is a risk. It could be a significant amount of money to create correctly and still end up not providing the security a company wants. When a company seeks non-compete agreement they are looking to protect the business, including trade secrets, business information such as client information, or other similar competitive edges. These are significant and important reasons and worth protecting, though a non-compete or some other mechanism. The problem is when designed poorly, they prevent an individual from using their education and training. It can also prevent the individual from taking on a position which would allow them to earn a living in their field.
As such, caution is warranted and finding a limited approach to a non-compete will provide the most likely success both in desired outcome under a valid non-compete.