Note that only 3 states (California, Oklahoma, and North Dakota) ban non-competes (and I'd quibble with this, California and ND afaik ban noncompetes about poaching customers/clients, while Oklahoma allows you ban employees from poaching client, so CA and ND have the strongest noncompete protection, and one is right to work and one isn't). Of these, North and South Dakota are Right-to-Work, and California is not. It's also hard to draw particular conclusions about trends among (I think the only real one I see is that non-right to work states have salary minimums before you can be subject to a noncompete, but so much of the specifics comes down to how courts have interpreted things). What is pretty clear is that there isn't a strong correlation between right to work laws and noncompete laws.
So the text of the statutes are unrelated, and its not even clear that there's a general trend of states with right to work laws having more noncompete protection.
I sort of expect you or your lawyer is extrapolating from one state (probably North Dakota, if I had to guess).
What I was told by 2 different attorneys in SC is that a a non-compete cannot be enforced if it prevents you from earning a living. It cannot force you to move out of the area to obtain a job.
Reasonableness is key to enforcement, meaning a reasonable radius, time and field. Any agreement that prevents you from working in your field is defacto-unenforceable specifically because it’s unreasonable.
Both of these attorneys had been practicing in the state for 20 years at the time of the conversation. One graduated from Georgetown and the other from University of South Carolina’s law school.
My understanding from them was that right to work was interpreted as ensuring you actually have “the right to work” via case law with noncompete agreements.
What your lawyers said sounds believable. It has absolutely nothing to do with "right to work" laws, which are a particular legal concept that have to do with union fee requirements. A quick google search suggests that there was a South Carolina supreme court ruling about noncompetes that addresses "the right of a person to use his talents to earn a living", so I can see what your confusion might stem from, but this is distinct from "right to work", which is a sort of political/legal shorthand for something specific to union contracts.
Here's the right to work laws by state: https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-...
Here's a (pdf warning) list of noncompete laws by state: https://faircompetitionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/No...
Note that only 3 states (California, Oklahoma, and North Dakota) ban non-competes (and I'd quibble with this, California and ND afaik ban noncompetes about poaching customers/clients, while Oklahoma allows you ban employees from poaching client, so CA and ND have the strongest noncompete protection, and one is right to work and one isn't). Of these, North and South Dakota are Right-to-Work, and California is not. It's also hard to draw particular conclusions about trends among (I think the only real one I see is that non-right to work states have salary minimums before you can be subject to a noncompete, but so much of the specifics comes down to how courts have interpreted things). What is pretty clear is that there isn't a strong correlation between right to work laws and noncompete laws.
And further, if you look at the right to work statues (for example Alabama's constitutional amendment: https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Right_to_Work,_Amendment_8_(..., or Oklahoma's : https://www.findlaw.com/state/oklahoma-law/oklahoma-right-to... as examples), you'll find that they're tailored specifically to prohibit requirements about union dues. They have nothing to do with noncompetes.
So the text of the statutes are unrelated, and its not even clear that there's a general trend of states with right to work laws having more noncompete protection.
I sort of expect you or your lawyer is extrapolating from one state (probably North Dakota, if I had to guess).