5 ms·

[Disclosure: AWS employee] This kind of clause has been part of every offer letter I've ever received from a company with >100 employees

jeremiep 10y ago
Same here. They rarely if ever enforce it unless you directly compete with your employer.
- Sir_Substance 10y ago
  Then why not have a clause saying just that?
  - jeremiep 10y ago
    That is a good question. I feel most companies do it out of habit (or because everyone else is doing it) and few have stopped to ask themselves whether the literature in the contract makes sense or not. That was the case at the last company I worked for, management was cargo culting a lot of things because "successful companies do it". So we had these contracts to sign, the "if you're not the recipient of this email.." footers, absurd job titles, and the list goes on. Seeing Agile come in was a farce at best.
    - Sir_Substance 10y ago
      >That is a good question. I feel most companies do it out of habit (or because everyone else is doing it) and few have stopped to ask themselves whether the literature in the contract makes sense or not. I agree. I encourage everyone to "mark" their contracts, even if they sign them in the end. I did it on my most recent contract, red pen and all. Read through the whole thing, circled bits and pieces that seemed wrong, or overly burdensome. The message was basically "I am going to sign this, but if I was to reject it, it would be because of /this/ line exactly". It's actually important feedback for the people writing these contracts. Lawyers may not understand the value that side projects have to developers. Remember that law isn't a profession where a side-project could suddenly turn into a fortune. My HR people really warmed to this kind of feedback, and I believe a few clauses were tweaked based on it in newer contracts, even if it didn't make it to me. Give it a try when signing for new jobs. If your HR people get snotty at you for it, you probably don't want to work there anyway.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
AmazonCandidate 10y ago
Good to know. Is it enforced rigorously within Amazon? Specifically the attention and effort aspect. Do Amazon employees really have to get written permission from Amazon to work on side projects that might make money?
- Sir_Substance 10y ago
  You should assume that it will be enforced. Signing a contract on the assumption that certain clauses might not be enforced is a mugs game. Bearing in mind that amazon has a reputation as a shitty employer, I personally would make desired revisions to the contract, hand it back to them and say "this is what I want, let's negotiate". If they insist on the boilerplate version of the contract, and cannot be persuaded to alter even small details to make you more comfortable, then you should nope the fuck out of there (unless you have no other financial option, in which case take it and immediately start searching for a bullying-free workplace. Don't forget to tell them on the way out why you chose to bail).
  - user5994461 10y ago
    > You should assume that it will be enforced. Signing a contract on the assumption that certain clauses might not be enforced is a mugs game. I do that all the time. Where I come from, there are plenty of standard clauses put in every contracts, which are 100% guaranteed illegal and not enforceable. Usually, ignoring them is easier than negotiating the contract.
    - Sir_Substance 10y ago
      >Usually, ignoring them is easier than negotiating the contract. You're mistaken. If the other party to the contract doesn't believe you, they may enforce the clause anyway, and then you'll have to pay for a lawyer to go and get it unenforced. Particularly if the clause was related to something time sensitive (e.g. something to do with shares, or something that prevented you from launching a product at the right moment), the court will not reward you for the opportunity value lost. If the clause is not legal, you should address that /before signing/ and have it removed from the contract. Doing otherwise on the assumption that the clause is unenforceable is arrogant and puts way too much faith in your local judicial system. It probably won't bite you in the arse, but it's one of those "if you do shoot yourself in the foot, you're gonna blow your whole damn leg off, not just the foot" situations.
debaserab2 10y ago
None of the 100+ employee (or 1000+) companies I've worked at have had such a strongly worded clause in the contracts they offered. There's usually something about how anything built using company equipment is theirs, but saying all "productive time" must be used towards Amazon is pretty ambiguous and rather broad in my opinion.
blazespin 10y ago
In Seattle, sure.
scoot 10y ago
"Disclaimer: AWS employee" That's a disclosure. (But don't feel bad - even the attorney up top go that bit wrong!)
1_2__3 10y ago
I work in both the executive and IC sides, and no, the "ATTENTION AND EFFORT" clause is not standard, at least, not that I've seen. Typically at most you'll see no-moonlighting clauses but I've never seen them phrased quite so repugnantly as they have been here - after reading the blog post about Japanese salarymen in particular it makes me throw up in my mouth a little. I'll never sign anything that says "Employee will devote Employee’s entire productive time, ability, attention, and effort to furthering <company's> best interests". That's bullshit, and no, not common.

jeremiep 10y ago

Same here. They rarely if ever enforce it unless you directly compete with your employer.

Sir_Substance 10y ago
Then why not have a clause saying just that?
- jeremiep 10y ago
  That is a good question. I feel most companies do it out of habit (or because everyone else is doing it) and few have stopped to ask themselves whether the literature in the contract makes sense or not. That was the case at the last company I worked for, management was cargo culting a lot of things because "successful companies do it". So we had these contracts to sign, the "if you're not the recipient of this email.." footers, absurd job titles, and the list goes on. Seeing Agile come in was a farce at best.
  - Sir_Substance 10y ago
    >That is a good question. I feel most companies do it out of habit (or because everyone else is doing it) and few have stopped to ask themselves whether the literature in the contract makes sense or not. I agree. I encourage everyone to "mark" their contracts, even if they sign them in the end. I did it on my most recent contract, red pen and all. Read through the whole thing, circled bits and pieces that seemed wrong, or overly burdensome. The message was basically "I am going to sign this, but if I was to reject it, it would be because of /this/ line exactly". It's actually important feedback for the people writing these contracts. Lawyers may not understand the value that side projects have to developers. Remember that law isn't a profession where a side-project could suddenly turn into a fortune. My HR people really warmed to this kind of feedback, and I believe a few clauses were tweaked based on it in newer contracts, even if it didn't make it to me. Give it a try when signing for new jobs. If your HR people get snotty at you for it, you probably don't want to work there anyway.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

AmazonCandidate 10y ago

Good to know. Is it enforced rigorously within Amazon? Specifically the attention and effort aspect. Do Amazon employees really have to get written permission from Amazon to work on side projects that might make money?

Sir_Substance 10y ago
You should assume that it will be enforced. Signing a contract on the assumption that certain clauses might not be enforced is a mugs game. Bearing in mind that amazon has a reputation as a shitty employer, I personally would make desired revisions to the contract, hand it back to them and say "this is what I want, let's negotiate". If they insist on the boilerplate version of the contract, and cannot be persuaded to alter even small details to make you more comfortable, then you should nope the fuck out of there (unless you have no other financial option, in which case take it and immediately start searching for a bullying-free workplace. Don't forget to tell them on the way out why you chose to bail).
- user5994461 10y ago
  > You should assume that it will be enforced. Signing a contract on the assumption that certain clauses might not be enforced is a mugs game. I do that all the time. Where I come from, there are plenty of standard clauses put in every contracts, which are 100% guaranteed illegal and not enforceable. Usually, ignoring them is easier than negotiating the contract.
  - Sir_Substance 10y ago
    >Usually, ignoring them is easier than negotiating the contract. You're mistaken. If the other party to the contract doesn't believe you, they may enforce the clause anyway, and then you'll have to pay for a lawyer to go and get it unenforced. Particularly if the clause was related to something time sensitive (e.g. something to do with shares, or something that prevented you from launching a product at the right moment), the court will not reward you for the opportunity value lost. If the clause is not legal, you should address that /before signing/ and have it removed from the contract. Doing otherwise on the assumption that the clause is unenforceable is arrogant and puts way too much faith in your local judicial system. It probably won't bite you in the arse, but it's one of those "if you do shoot yourself in the foot, you're gonna blow your whole damn leg off, not just the foot" situations.

debaserab2 10y ago

None of the 100+ employee (or 1000+) companies I've worked at have had such a strongly worded clause in the contracts they offered. There's usually something about how anything built using company equipment is theirs, but saying all "productive time" must be used towards Amazon is pretty ambiguous and rather broad in my opinion.

blazespin 10y ago

In Seattle, sure.

scoot 10y ago

"Disclaimer: AWS employee" That's a disclosure. (But don't feel bad - even the attorney up top go that bit wrong!)

1_2__3 10y ago

I work in both the executive and IC sides, and no, the "ATTENTION AND EFFORT" clause is not standard, at least, not that I've seen. Typically at most you'll see no-moonlighting clauses but I've never seen them phrased quite so repugnantly as they have been here - after reading the blog post about Japanese salarymen in particular it makes me throw up in my mouth a little. I'll never sign anything that says "Employee will devote Employee’s entire productive time, ability, attention, and effort to furthering <company's> best interests". That's bullshit, and no, not common.