My sister worked at Subway and had to sign a noncompete that she wouldn’t work at another sandwich shop for three years. Are they really afraid she’s going to steal their secrets of placing meat on bread?
The more cynical will certainly assume malice, that the company did this to keep you from leaving. It particularly at the time it was not hard at all to find new fast food workers, and I am a firm believer in Hanlon’s Razor and never assume malice when incompetence will do. I genuinely think the explanation could just be Subway’s lawyers were like “everyone else is doing noncompetes”.
Not sure so much on the cargo culting aspect, but in essence, I am convinced that this phenomenon is effectively true.
If corporations were run entirely by lawyers, the likelihood that any corporation would take risks that would lead to innovation would be approaching zero. Of course, corporations without laws would run amok, but that's beside the point. I've worked at companies that were absolutely afraid to do anything that the legal department found troublesome, holding them back from risks that might have been worthwhile and wouldn't have been apocalyptic had anything gone wrong. It's a shame to see that happen, and I suppose that's why the current paradigm needs to keep generating startups in order to drive innovation. Though we really haven't been seeing much innovation as of late.
There may be some cargo culting of noncompetes, but it seems more likely that noncompetes are inherently in the best interest of the business from the point of view of the lawyers, and businesses see noncompetes as a sort of moat against competition. Both are fairly reasonable perspectives, though neither is necessarily true in reality, which is why businesses don't necessarily have to listen to their legal team on every decision.