My goal in limiting NCAs would be for employers: "you cannot use non competes to artificially lower employee compensation, as your total cost will be much very expensive"; and for individuals: "if you are subject to an NCA you will actually be compensated for that period".
It would also mean you can do industry standard practice of changing jobs to increase compensation even while subject to an NCA as they would be required to pay you more than the "competitor" if you get an offer and they want to prevent you taking it. Again the goal is to prevent the use of NCAs for wage suppression - the company requiring the NCA would have to be really dedicated to their belief the NCA is needed.
Regarding RSUs, the document I'm reading does not explicitly mention them, but it says that it includes all benefits that you are taxed on, and well, I'm certainly being taxed on my RSUs.
All that said, the clause says you only get 40% or 60% of your full compensation (depending on the duration), so it is a ~50% pay cut for other reasons. Furthermore, it reduces to 16% if you manage to find another job in the same industry, and you are required to look for such jobs.
This is the correct interpretation.
There is a max time of 6 months for non-compete (and non-solicit). So in practice this is never an issue – you just wait out your 6 months.