The engineering design consultancy I work for (structural/civil/buildings) has historically had lower base salaries than competitors but made up for it by paying overtime (at times almost freely). As the company continues to grow they are now looking to phase out paid overtime, which I understand in terms of them having greater certainty over cash flow.

New contracts are being rolled out where base pay is being increased as compensation. The contract does however state that senior staff may be required to work up to 45 hours per week at times. Nothing unusual given this seemed to be the norm for most of us anyway (and then some). What did catch our eye though is a restraint of trade type clause stating we agree not to go work for a competitor for up to 6 months after leaving, whether on their terms or ours.

To me this is totally impractical. It's not a big city and we all know the other players. There's nothing groundbreaking to our work that sets us apart from the others. We seem fine with taking people from competitors straight out the door but now they don't want us doing the same. Feels like we're being hand cuffed to the company because if we aren't happy and get a better offer, who is going to wait 6 months for you to start? It would be slightly more palatable if they said they would pay us out for the six months (to sit on the sidelines) but that isn't the case.

Are such clauses enforceable when the line of work isn't that unique and it restricts your ability to earn a living otherwise? No one I have spoken to is happy and we all want the clause removed.