39 ms·

Amazon added a non-compete after the employee entered the U.S. on an L1B visa

• sumanthvepa 6y ago
  I worked at Amazon in the early aughts. They had the same non-compete then. I worked around it by going to business school after I left. By the time I took my next job, the 18 months had expired. Plan your post employment very carefully -- both financially and career wise when you join one of the big 4. When you receive a salary offer, calculate the actually salary by assuming 18 months of unemployment.
  • yomly 6y ago
    So say you join Amazon and after 1-2 years you're no longer happy, is jumping ship to FNG (+Apple/msft) out of the question? Seems a little overzealous if you are a rank and file
    • kube-system 6y ago
      Even in the states where these agreements are enforceable, they usually only are enforceable for a job in the same role, a competitive business, and the same physical location. I worked for a company for about a decade with an agreement like this; the people who left usually got out of it by lying about where they're going, working remotely for a while, or getting their next employer to change their title.
      • xrd 6y ago
        That's interesting. At first glance, I thought you were suggesting "just switch roles completely!" But, you aren't saying that, you are saying the new employer just needs to be clever in creating a role with a different name. But, then again, for some roles a public presence is needed, like public speaking. You can't temporarily have the role of "janitor" and go out and speak authoritatively about AWS at a conference with that role. Maybe people will get the joke after understanding the true state of these agreements. Wait, do we even have conferences anymore?
        • swyx 6y ago
          lying is just never a good strategy. everyone talks.
          • kube-system 6y ago
            Maybe. Are you important enough to get administrative attention after you're gone, or does your HR department only care as much as they have to complete their offboarding checklist?
          • stale2002 6y ago
            People may talk, but the reality is that nobody is listening. Companies are not sending private detectives, to follow engineers to their new job, and finding out specifically what they are working on, and if the contract is enforceable or not. Mostly, people just forget about you, once you leave. People get away with lying all the time.
        • kube-system 6y ago
          > You can't temporarily have the role of "janitor" and go out and speak authoritatively about AWS at a conference with that role. It is my understanding that you can often get away with being a lot more subtle than that. Things like throwing a proprietary product name in your title, a title that sounds more like a manager, etc.
        • chilukrn 6y ago
          Not "AWS specialist" to janitor, but AWS to "cloud deployment engineer" or simply "member of technical staff "
      • djsumdog 6y ago
        But you don't want to ever be put in that position.
      • goodcanadian 6y ago
        I forget the details because, frankly, it had no impact on me, but at one company, I remember a new executive simply not being able to fulfill some of the duties of his new role for several months until his non-compete expired. If the company wants you bad enough, they will find a way to make it work.
    • guitarsteve 6y ago
      I and many of my colleagues worried about non competes at Amazon. But mine wasn’t enforced and I’ve never heard of a “rank and file” individual contributor or non-exec manager having it enforced. My impression is it’s only worth it for VPs or other very high level employees. But the scare tactics evidently do work, in terms of scaring employees to stay or to jump through extra hoops (moving states even if they don’t want to) to avoid enforcement. Has anyone here had a company try to enforce their non compete, and can share their insights?
      • HelloNurse 6y ago
        I've only heard of noncompete agreements being enforced out of spite against someone who has quit on bad terms, not because of a genuine interest for noncompetition.
    • Pfhreak 6y ago
      When I was leaving Amazon, the logic was generally -- don't go to the same org in a different company. E.g. if you work in S3, don't go to Google Cloud Storage. If you land in ads or maps or search or whatever, that should be fine. Though, it's really up to Amazon whether they want to keep you unemployed for 18 months, which is (in my mind) totally unethical to even have in the contract in the first place.
  • _jal 6y ago
    Come to California, where the monocle & mustache-twirling set has been forced to settle for slightly less control of the lower castes.
    • sumanthvepa 6y ago
      Actually, I'm so glad I now live in India. Non-competes have absolutely no-validity, and good luck trying to enforce one.
      • rb2k_ 6y ago
        Same in California. For people that want the details: https://california.public.law/codes/ca_bus_and_prof_code_section_16600#:~:text=California%20Business%20and,Sec.&text=16600,is%20to%20that%20extent%20void https://california.public.law/codes/ca_bus_and_prof_code_sec.... California Business & Professions Code section 16600 makes clear that any non-compete provision between employer and employee will not be enforceable under California law
        • djsumdog 6y ago
          Yep, I've seen contracts where they say "Clause x/y doesn't apply in the State of California" and then the employer try to tell me "Well, it's not a non-compete" .. bullshit. It clearly is.
      • flak48 6y ago
        Doesn't stop them from including the clause in the contract though. (Though nothing is actually enforcable in India like you said, simply because you would probably be retired before the case would get a court date)
        • systemBuilder 6y ago
          Just proves that lawyering is the continuation of bullying after your youth has expired
        • gnopgnip 6y ago
  • CydeWeys 6y ago
    > Plan your post employment very carefully -- both financially and career wise when you join one of the big 4. This is only true of Amazon. As far as I'm aware, none of the others have non-competes (Google certainly doesn't). So maybe the more succinct advice is, just don't work for Amazon.
    • djsumdog 6y ago
      I'm pretty sure Google does depending on which State you work in. If it's in California, it's illegal, but if you get hired by Google of NY, they have no restrictions there, so it's probably in that contract. I'm not sure what happens if you're hired in California and then transfer somewhere else.
      • mikro2nd 6y ago
        Likewise, if you get hired by Amazon in Cape Town, it's illegal. In South Africa non-competes are only legally valid for top-tier exec-level positions, and even then maybe not.
        • pinkfoot 6y ago
          This is incorrect, non-competes in South Africa (I got advice on it once for a gig there) are enforcable is they are reasonable. For example, if the company pays you your old salary for a year after you leave, the non-compete with be enforceable. If they just part ways with no reasonable exchange of value for the non-compete period, all you have to claim is this is how you make your crust. Those folk have a serious legal consititution.
      • fhrow4484 6y ago
        That's false. Since it's Washington State we're talking about: Googlers who join in WA state do not have a Non-compete in their contract (at least the "rank and file" engineers), even though Google could add it and Amazon/Microsoft have one. In fact Google took it a step further and tried to lobby to get non-compete banned in WA State: There was an almost full-ban on non-compete that was proposed a few years ago in Washington State. Google came to the public hearings with full support for the law as it is (which make sense given the status for non compete in California - and how it had gotten sued by Microsoft over one employee, and now again by Amazon). The law would have made it that non-compete are void if laid-off, and void if over 1 year max or if you're not an executive employee. But Microsoft, Amazon, and the hospitals lobbied hard against it. (Hospitals are using those non-competes on both nurses and doctors apparently) So the bill got rewritten where it only applies to people with a total comp less than 185k, and where student debt could be subtracted to that 185k. This, again, got fought more by opponents. Now the ban on non compete only applies to people whose yearly salary (total comp as listed on W-2) is less than 100k, So doctors and tech workers at those companies get nothing out of it, except the clarification that non compete: - cannot be for longer than 18 months - if employee is laid off and non compete is enforced, the company must pay base salary for the duration of non-compete. Geekwire had a good coverage of it over the years: https://www.geekwire.com/2016/non-compete-bill-stalls-washington-state-opposition-business-groups/ https://www.geekwire.com/2016/non-compete-bill-stalls-washin... https://www.geekwire.com/2018/effort-kill-non-competes-washington-state-fails-leaving-controversial-contracts-intact/ https://www.geekwire.com/2018/effort-kill-non-competes-washi... https://www.geekwire.com/2019/tech-leaders-sound-off-washington-states-new-non-compete-restrictions/ https://www.geekwire.com/2019/tech-leaders-sound-off-washing... And the original bills: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2931.pdf http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Hou... http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1967.pdf http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Hou... final bill: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1450&Initiative=false&Year=2019 https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1450&Initiativ...
  • sonicggg 6y ago
    Why is that you, and other people here, are treating a contract like it's law? Companies can put pretty much anything they want in a contract, it does not mean its enforceable. You have to take into account your jurisdiction.
    • sgc 6y ago
      Somehow I think the legal bills fighting Amazon will be higher than any lost pay, and you might not win.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • Frost1x 6y ago
      There are a lot of people who simply don't have the resources to fight a non-compete clause. Do you think a fresh grad working at Amazon 1-2 years in an SWE role is equipped to take on Amazon's undoubtedly massive top talented legal team if they choose to litigate? The law may be on their side but the resources to pursue it may not and any reasonable doubt of being incorrect could be financial or even career suicide. If a business can get even a small fraction of its labor to follow unenforcable/essentially illegal requirements, they've made significant headway, even if they don't ever choose to attempt to litigate. Over time, those practices can become normalized and set industry standards where they become more and more successful. I think it should be illegal to even stipulate such requirements in contracts to begin with to prevent businesses from eroding labor rights over time. There should be massive fines in place that penalize even stipulating those sort of clauses to make sure businesses only include reasonable language/requirements.
      • ryandrake 6y ago
        This is ultimately what it comes down to. Contracts between very rich/powerful entities and relatively poor/powerless entities, in practice, can contain anything the rich/powerful entity wants because the poor/powerless entity cannot afford litigation. Cell phone contracts, car leases, employment agreements, basically anything written by a company and targeting an individual--just read one of them. All the clauses protect and benefit the company, and very little good is in there for the individual. And they are take-it-or-leave-it: There's generally no negotiation or ability to add individual-favoring terms [1]. Try negotiating the legal terms in your cable bill and let me know how that worked out for you. Contracts among equals tend to be more fair because each side is on a level playing field. 1: Yes, I am aware that there are a few software engineers out there with specialized skills who have successfully managed to negotiate some non-salary terms out of their employment agreements. Congratulations, you are not representative of the general employee population.
  • lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    What do you mean by Big 4? I thought that was an accounting industry thing.
  • outside1234 6y ago
    Or just don’t work for Amazon. I don’t know of any of any such clause at Microsoft or Google.
    • my123 6y ago
      I had a 6 months no-compete at Microsoft.
      • DenisM 6y ago
        Do they ever enforce it?
        • my123 6y ago
          Never heard of it being enforced.
  • corporateslave5 6y ago
    Lol what? You can easily with to another FAANG from amazon
    • lowiqengineer 6y ago
      I think the implication is the average engineer at Amazon isn't capable of getting into another FAANG, because Amazon is the easiest/least well paying company in FAANG.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• kirubakaran 6y ago
  Relevant: "Amazon sues former AWS marketing VP Brian Hall after he takes Google Cloud job" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23461326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23461326 (5 days ago) And David says he joined as one level about entry level! It's not like he was a VP, which makes Amazon's actions even more egregious.
  • flak48 6y ago
    The general thought process is to make you sign away as much as they can, and later worry about if it was required or something they even want to consider enforcing.
• annoyingnoob 6y ago
  Very shady. Move to a place where those terms are unenforceable. I think its less about Amazon being scared and more of a tool to suppress wage growth.
  • falcor84 6y ago
    I don't see the contradiction. Amazon are afraid of their employees having more power. Their success was built upon an open market, but they are trying to prevent others from benefiting from this.
    • filesystem 6y ago
      I saw a comment on here a couple years ago or so that referred to this practice as "Ladder Licking". Lick the steps behind you so that nobody else can climb up the same ladder that you did.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    • annoyingnoob 6y ago
      Non-competes are usually about proprietary information / intellectual property. Amazon does not want someone learning their secret sauce recipe and then take it next door and start using it. That same non-compete also means you might not be able to get a higher paying job next door, which is a side-effect that only benefits employers.
      • wikibob 6y ago
        This is incorrect. A "Proprietary Information and Assignment Agreement" is about protecting proprietary information. It is illegal in all 50 states to use trade-secret information at a new employer. See Anthony Levandowski. A Non-compete is about labor market, wage, and competition suppression.
        • 6y ago
• rumanator 6y ago
  The delicious coincidence of Amazon forcing that abusive clause into a contract with someone whose name translates to "vassal".
• Swizec 6y ago
  The crazy part of these clauses is the “or any business the company might get into” ... dude you’re amazon, you might get into just about anything. Thankfully these clauses don’t work in California
  • yomly 6y ago
    So if you move from Seattle to SF then would you be free to work at another company of your choosing?
    • cortesoft 6y ago
      You could still be sued in Seattle even if you move to California. Jurisdiction is based on where you entered the contract.
      • ta17711771 6y ago
        But would Cali extradite?
        • toyg 6y ago
          "Extradite" is not the right word - these are civil matters, the loser doesn't go to jail, he just has to pay something. The question is more like: "could a sentence in Washington, resulting in a fine or other monetary obligation, be enacted or enforced in California?" I don't know American law, but I'd be surprised if there were no mechanisms for Washington to tell California (and viceversa) "this dude owes us money, use your powers to make him pay please".
        • hpkuarg 6y ago
          It's a civil tort, not a crime. Amazon would presumably have to serve process to the California resident ex-employee, who would need to show up to court in Washington or send representation to present their case.
        • john-shaffer 6y ago
          It's a civil matter, not criminal. Extradition is irrelevant. The states agreed to honor court decisions in other states in Article 4 of the Constitution: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." If a court in Washington says you owe money, it's enforced the same as if it were a court in California.
• falcolas 6y ago
  Reminds me of a post employment copyright assignment clause added to the other employment paperwork when I started my latest job. I was near the end of my savings after being laid off, so I had no real room for saying “no”. US employers are getting pretty shady with all these post-job “agreements”.
  • CoolGuySteve 6y ago
    Yeah, when I worked for Tudor Investment they gave me a 3 inch thick binder of an “employee handbook” on the first day and made me sign that I’d agreed to the terms of this literally unreadable document. In retrospect I should have known worse things were to come from those assholes. It should be illegal to add terms after the initial contract is signed. The only reason they do it is because they know once you’re in the door, you already turned down other offers and therefore have less leverage.
    • Mirioron 6y ago
      I wonder if a way around this is to put into the initial contract that there won't be any additional terms.
      • falcolas 6y ago
        Probably not - at least not in most of the US. Continued employment is considered to be sufficient 'consideration' for at-will employees when presented with a modification to your contract.
  • CydeWeys 6y ago
    Post-employment copyright assignment? As in, code you wrote after you left their employment would still be owned by them, without them paying you for it??
    • falcolas 6y ago
      Yes, basically a 12 month extension on your typical US copyright assignment agreement.
• A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I can't seem to access the original source. Is it a non-compete for entry level workers the way Jimmy Jones tried to put in place? If so, it is silly and not reasonable. Those used to be for senior level people who could actually do some damage. A kid stocking stuff? I do not think so.
• raverbashing 6y ago
  Sounds like another competitive advantage of moving to the valley (not forgetting the other disadvantages, of course)
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• LeanderK 6y ago
  Out of interest, in the US can you turn to anyone who represents your interests in this case? There are no unions and no worker-representatives at all, aren't there? Is everybody scared to stand up to your employer in those cases?
  • tridentlead 6y ago
    There are quite a few of both those things.
    • MiroF 6y ago
      Unions in tech? Pray tell.
  • gpm 6y ago
    An employment lawyer? Sure, you have to pay for it, but you have to pay for it indirectly if it's a union anyways. It's unfortunate that the costs aren't spread over the entire organization, but getting the opinion of a lawyer is not that expensive for a software engineer. Personally I suspect that if he refused to sign this and they fired him for that he could have recovered significant damages under promissory estoppel, but that's something you'd need to check with a lawyer before actually doing it.
• founderling 6y ago
  I beg to differ. They did not "add" a non-compete. They scared him into signing one. Someone at Amazon put a paper on his desk and said that unless he signs it, they would not "authorize my employment". Whatever that means. So I signed. Because what other options did I have? The option not to sign. He had an offer from them and he agreed. That is a legal binding contract that they have to abide. So don't sign and say "Sorry, but we have a legally binding agreement. And this is not in line with it.". If you let people scare you by saying something, they will continue to play tricks on you. Stick to what is written.
  • cortesoft 6y ago
    He was on a work visa. If he loses his job, he loses his right to stay in the country. That puts a lot of extra pressure on someone to keep their job.
    • founderling 6y ago
      Yes. That is how they scared him into signing it. But I suggest standing your ground in such a situation. They wanted to work with him. They had a contract with him. So there was a lot of pressure on them too. If they breached the contract they would lose an employee and face legal repercussions.
      • jsnell 6y ago
        I think you're vastly overestimating both the leverage a low-level employee would have in one of those megacorps and the amount of autonomy that an HR rep would have in a case like this. They have a process to follow, and that process does not include negotiation. Maybe they have the power to escalate the request to someone with decision making power, but that's going to take time, and their flowchart probably does not allow for allowing somebody to start work provisionally until that escalation is solved. What "legal repercussions" are you thinking of? The author stated that their new contract was "at will", so their employment could be terminated for any reason at all. (Not defending Amazon here. But the employee had been put into a position where they had no realistic choice but to sign.)
• kmclean 6y ago
  This seems really shady. It seems to imply it's legal for companies to restrict what you do after you don't work for them anymore? Any historians around? How did the US get to a place where employers have near total control of their employees, even after they're no longer paying them? That just sounds bad. I've also heard of contracts that essentially prohibit side projects or moonlighting. Are software developers not aware they don't need to accept these restrictions to make a living? I guess maybe companies impose the restrictions under duress like in this story. Still, I'm surprised companies with such unethical employment practices can manage to hire anyone.
  • vertex-four 6y ago
    Employers having near-total control of their employees was the norm through much of history - capitalism is a development of feudalism. Then unions fought for workers' rights and much was won in much of the world, and workers' rights overall improved ever since in countries where they could organise politically across sectors. An assumption that freedom of companies to do whatever they want leads to better outcomes for society has eroded some of this in more recent years, but all in all we're doing better than a hundred years ago. The US, on the other hand, cracked down on unions and prevented them from gaining political power in the same way that they did across Europe, and the rest is history.
  • loeg 6y ago
    It is shady. But I think you have a rosier view of historical working conditions than is warranted. As far as the US: noncompetes are broadly legal. California is notable as being a state where they are not. There is a history section on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause
    • kmclean 6y ago
      Yeah you're probably right. It's a bit depressing learning about the way those who actually make a business worth anything get treated, though.
  • cwzwarich 6y ago
• jakub_g 6y ago
  Aren't those kind of clauses only enforceable if they pay you a (part of) salary during those 18 months? At least it works like that in Europe AFAIK.
  • Lunatic666 6y ago
    It's like that in Germany, you can happily sign contracts with these clauses as they're void anyway unless they actually pay you for this period.
• dragosmocrii 6y ago
  I keep getting invitations from Amazon recruiters who say are impressed with my LinkedIn profile. I keep ignoring, and even said I'm not interested, but they keep sending it again after a while. Must be desperately looking for devs
  • kyleashipley 6y ago
    I think it’s more that recruiting is a sales job, often with a commission attached to it. I wouldn’t say that Amazon is “desperate for business,” but they still emailed me every few weeks about moving our business into AWS.
  • cheez 6y ago
    I tell them the minimum is 800k salary plus bonus without an interview. Never hear from them again.
• Jare 6y ago
  > In Europe, and in some states in the US, employment restrictions after job termination are illegal This is unfortunately not true, at the very least in Spain and the UK (that I know of) they are legal - although more regulated in written and in practice (to certain extents) than the Wild West that seems to be most of the US.
  • realusername 6y ago
    In France, non-compete need to be both reasonable (not to broad) and paid extra on top of the salary when you quit the job. If there's no monetary compensation for the non-compete, they are just invalid. I find this position reasonable, non-competes are an extra burden on the employee so they should be paid for.
    • sgc 6y ago
      Can they just pay 1 Euro or is there a set formula?
      • joyj2nd 6y ago
        In nearly all countries any contract must be at "arms length". Otherwise you could do fancy things, for example regarding taxes. :-) This is actually a reason why you can not, for example, enforce something that is given freely. E.g. I give you a contract where I promise you to give you my house for free. If I change later my mind, in many jurisdictions you could not force me to write over my house since there is not "arms length". It is something for nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm%27s_length_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm%27s_length_principle
        • willcipriano 6y ago
          Similarly, as I understand it In the US most noncompete contracts are actually unenforceable due to the concept of consideration[0]. Every noncompete I've signed offered me nothing of value in exchange for my agreement, they weren't part of the negotiation process and were simply presented with the health insurance and other forms on my first day with a implied "sign this or you don't have a job". However that wouldn't stop someone from calling your new employer and threatening to sue. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration
• gdsdfe 6y ago
  I don't actually see what the problem here is, he just moved to a country with a shittier employment laws ... Can't blame Amazon for playing the game. Edit: don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what Amazon did is OK, I'm saying it's probably legal, it's the employment laws in the US that are unethical.
  • tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    It's nice for others to know so they don't fall into the same trap.
  • TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    Yes you can. Complaining about unethical, exploitative business practices is how change is made.
  • gpm 6y ago
    Amazon apparently fraudulently issued an employment offer and contract that they never intended to honor. It will certainly make me think twice about ever signing a contract with Amazon.
  • rst 6y ago
    Screwing people over in every way that's legally permissible is... not always considered praiseworthy. And you can blame Amazon for straight-up lying to the guy about how the terms of his employment would change after the transfer.
• sschueller 6y ago
  Off topic but how much of Jeff's wealth would it take to transform Amazon into the best place to work in the world? Solid pay, fair employment, etc, the whole thing across the board. Even if it took 2/3rds, Jeff would still be one of the most wealthy individuals in the world. Jeff could make a real change and set and example. Yet he doesn't and I for one can not understand why after you have more than a billion in wealth you would need any more.
  • rubber_duck 6y ago
    I don't understand how you think he should go about doing that ? Do you think he's spending his net worth on a yearly basis so if he refrained from spending 2/3 and redistributed it would make Amazon amazing ? Or are you saying he should kill profitability and let his shares tank by 2/3 ? I don't really like Amazon but I don't be see what your comment means in practice (I hear it often tho)
  • 29athrowaway 6y ago
    You cannot amass a wealth such as the one Jeff Bezos has through reciprocity. Maximizing profit and ensuring reciprocity are opposite processes.
    • adventured 6y ago
      You can make a modest argument for that as it relates to Amazon retail. Mass retail is a hyper low margin business, and one in which the labor skill required is very low, which produces the low incomes: the employees are very easy to replace and the sales & profit per employee ratio is very low. Bezos doesn't derive more than 1/4 of his wealth from the Amazon retail business however. His wealth primarily comes from AWS. Your premise collapses badly in tech. The big flaw in your premise is the notion that the profit maximization equation involves slashing compensation to the lowest levels possible. In tech - and most high-skill segments - that is not the optimal equation. The employees of Microsoft - to name one example of many - are among the best compensated workers in all of history, anywhere, at any time, doing anything. Many other tech giants with extreme profits mirror that outcome, including at such companies as Facebook and Google. Microsoft is the second most profitable non-state corporation in history, and will soon surpass Apple as #1. They're presently generating $52 billion per year in operating profit and will double in size in the next seven or eight years. They learned a long time ago to share the wealth to attract the best talent, because it was more than worth it for the printing press profits they get in return. More broadly speaking, tech employees in the US as a major sector are the best paid in world history, and they're the most coddled by a large margin. There is nothing remotely like it in any other segment of the global economy. For 2019, approximately 1.4 million US software developers earning a median of ~$110,000 per year (and that's not total compensation, which leaves out a lot). Show me anything else comparable to that anywhere else on the planet. Sure sounds like reciprocity derived from enormous profits to me. By maximizing profitability, they can pay their workers better; by paying their workers better, they can attract the best talent and maximize profitability.
• newbie578 6y ago
  I wonder what does someone like Jeff Bezos think regarding this situation in his own company? Especially since Bezos is a strong advocate for long term thinking and that annoying mantra "still day one". Can they not see the fallacy of these policies? Burning bridges and thinking short term? They might have a prospective pool of talents regarding fresh graduates, but more and more people are actively trying to avoid AWS and companies with similar "reputations".
  • Mirioron 6y ago
    Perhaps Bezos simply doesn't know? There must be quite a few layers between this guy and Bezos who will massage or hide the story.
    • DVassallo 6y ago
      Bezos absolutely knows about the standard non-compete clause in everyone’s contract. They sued many people over it.
    • rantwasp 6y ago
      yeah no. Bezos knows. you cannot “not know” based on how the show is run
• claudeganon 6y ago
  As someone whose had friends suffer similar immigration-related shakedowns by big corps, all I can say is that this is despicable and more common then you’d imagine. In my experience, it comes when you try to move companies, with them demanding illegal, exhorbitant reimbursement for legal fees or maybe there’s going to be a “mix-up“ with your paperwork. I know HN leans anti-union, but think if you actually had the power to stop companies from doing this to yourself, your friends, and coworkers. Think if it was part of the very basis of employment that such intimidation was not allowed and that people were at the ready to come together and stop anyone who tried. The point of organizing is to give workers this parallel, durable form of power, that persists beyond any one negotiation.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• sgummaluri 6y ago
  Apparently, this is not an isolated occurrence and Corey Quinn of LastWeekInAWS talks of this here[0] [0]https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/why-i-turned-down-an-aws-job-offer/ https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/why-i-turned-down-an-aws-...
• ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
  I had an employer that forced many of us to sign a very restrictive NCA. At the time they did it for me, I had been there about 20 years (I was middle management). I did sign it, as not doing so meant termination (I know one or two others that chose termination). I have no idea what the terms of their termination were (like if they got a pat or a kick in the butt). I also had determined, by then, that I would be doing different stuff, afterwards (which I am). It was a bad NCA. It explicitly stated that, if they laid me off, or fired me, I still couldn't go to another company that fell under their definition, and it was a very broad definition. If I had gotten a job as a clerk at a drug store, it could have been construed as a "competitor or customer," because of the photo-processing lab. Probably unenforceable, but that's beside the point. It still would have required me to hire a lawyer, and would probably have poisoned me to potential employers.
  • rantwasp 6y ago
    yeah. i’m pretty sure stuff like this is completely unenforceable. this sounds like being forced to sign it so you can easily make the argument that you signed it because you had no other choice and you were threatened with termination.
    • mamurphy 6y ago
      >easily make the argument A lawyer near you just had a delighted vision of profits. Amazon can afford a $XX,XXX-$XXX,XXX legal battle over your non-compete, can you?
      • rantwasp 6y ago
        the comment i was answering to was about a job were they added the NCA after the person was employed there for 20 years!!! as far as your comment goes: nope. Amazon cannot afford a legal battle for each and every one of their employees. Also Amazon knows they’re going to look really stupid if they do go the route of suing you. Only case where I have seen NCAs trying to be enforced is in case of high profile executives where they are actually trying to send a message more than enforce the NCA. It’s a stupid posturing game that rarely works.
• djsumdog 6y ago
  Most times when I see a non-compete, I tell them I won't sign it and the company will just remove it. Only recently in Chicago did I have to walk away from two jobs because they wouldn't change their employment contracts: https://battlepenguin.com/tech/why-i-dont-sign-non-competes/ https://battlepenguin.com/tech/why-i-dont-sign-non-competes/ If a company isn't willing to negotiate their work agreement (and I understand this is difficult with a legal department; they prefer to have unified contracts for all employees based on their start year), then there is no "meeting of the minds" when it comes to signing that agreement. It's not a work contract at that point, it's an EULA. I personally know people who were told by potential employers they couldn't be considered because of non-competes. They are unethical and they should be banned national wide in the US and not just in certain states like California.
  • amiga_500 6y ago
    All part of your wider culture which considers corporations more important than real people.
  • Ericson2314 6y ago
    If we want to harmonize the contracts to save the legal department trouble, we should have more collective bargaining!
  • mjmahone17 6y ago
    Non competes have their place. But it should cost the employers to enforce it. The most obvious way is to require paying the employee their previous average total compensation, while still allowing the employee to work outside the non-compete. There should also be some form of “as time goes on you need to pay more to prevent them from taking a competing job”. If you don’t want to pay someone to not work for a competitor, then your non-compete should not be valid.
    • ng12 6y ago
      They do this in finanance, New York has relatively enforceable non-competes. Typically they'll pay you your full salary for the period of time you're not working.
• hodgesrm 6y ago
  HN readers often wonder how to fix non-competes. Here's a simple idea: if you run a start-up, stand up for your employees and don't put this crap into offers. Basically I don't put anything in an employment agreement that I wouldn't sign myself.
  • LoSboccacc 6y ago
    on the other side of the coin, Take Two just killed an indie studio that was refusing to cede control over ksp 2 development direction by poaching the majority of its employers not saying non-competes are straight up good, but it's not that they exist in a vacuum because every employee is the evil guy from monopoly. I like the solution that we have here, non competes without monetary compensation are immediately void. so if they want to handcuff you, they have to pay for it after employment for as long as they want the non compete to be enforceable. it's a minor simple thing, but haggling on the non compete handout is much easier than trying to get the non compete removed.
    • 0az 6y ago
      I believe in this case they also killed the indie studio's contract.
    • steventhedev 6y ago
      There's a vast difference between a noncompete agreement between employee and employer and a noncompete/nonsolicitation clause in a contract between businesses. The first limits the individual employee's ability to compete in the marketplace. The second prevents a business partner from leveraging their position to kill your business. Almost everyone (except the shareholders) benefits from employer-employee noncompetes being banned outright. Almost everyone suffers from having business-business nonsolicitations being banned outright. Why the studio's lawyer didn't include it in the contract is beyond me...
    • hodgesrm 6y ago
      I've been in the DBMS business for three decades and have never heard of this happening. In California it's a vanishingly rare case. What has happened is that every new DBMS company I know has benefited from the flow of engineers from legacy companies. This would have been impossible with non-competes. Happy to be proven wrong.
• arxv33 6y ago
  I have signed a similar non-compete without knowing the 18month clause is there when I moved to Austin to work for Amazon with an L1B visa. My plan once I leave Amazon is to move to California and work out of there for 18months before moving back to Austin to get around this issue.
  • jmeister 6y ago
    L1B is a dead-end, how do you plan to leave amazon and still stay in the US?
    • arxv33 6y ago
      I have since got the Green Card/permanent residency.
      • iaw 6y ago
        Off-topic: Congratulations! Welcome to the country.
    • kyawzazaw 6y ago
      I have the same question.
• thelazydogsback 6y ago
  I've always signed them as a sign of good faith (sometimes amending with my own IP so there's no misunderstand about something I've already done if the company is in the same space) figuring that they have no teeth. In 30 years in the industry moving between small and large companies here in the Seattle area, having signed a NC everywhere, I've never even been asked about a previous NC, nor do I know anyone else that's had an issue. From what I understand, they are very difficult to take action on. Perhaps in the upper echelon's of management this is more of an issue, or for very narrowly-defined technologies or market-segments.
  • MichaelApproved 6y ago
    Depends on the state you live in.
• cletus 6y ago
  So here's a quick summary of Amazon key benefits: - Other FAANG companies vest 25% of your initial grant every year. Amazon works on a 5/15/40/40% vesting schedule. Actually it's unclear if this is now 10/20/30/40. Either way, it's weighted towards the end; - Amazon will argue you get a starting bonus to cover you. Other companies give you a starting bonus and typically pay you in a lump sum, not over 2 years; - Other FAANG companies use a fairly simple formula of Initial Grant Value / Initial Share Price [1]. Amazon's grants are valued assuming the share price goes up at a certain rate. - FB and Google at least--possibly others--have no cliff. Up until a few years ago, you'd typically get no stock vest in the first year. Not so now. I can't find a definitive answer on this but I fully expect you'll be waiting the full year for your 5% (or is it 10%?) - Amazon has a 50% match on 401k contributions... capped to 4% of eligible earnings, which I assume is salary + bonus [2]. So at $150,000 eligible compensation, you'll only get the first $6,000 matched at 50% (so up to $3,000). Google has no cap. Facebook has a cap of 7%. - Amazon 401k matches are unvested for 2-3 years. Each year you work 1,000 hours or more counts as 1 year so join mid-year and it might only be 2 years. This means if you leave Amazon before those 2-3 years are up, Amazon will take back your match. Neither FB nor Google does this. - Amazon PTO for US salaried employees starts at 6 paid holidays and 10 days of PTO [3] with 2 weeks (IIRC) of paid sick leave. In year 2 this goes to 15 days. In year 6, it's 20. Google and FB have 10-12 company holidays a year with pretty much unlimited sick paid leave. Google starts at 15 days vacation going to 20 in the third year and 25 in the fifth. FB has 21 days. To this list we can no add 18 month noncompetes. If you're capable of getting a software engineering job at Amazon, you're capable of getting much, much better benefits elsewhere. Side note: attempting to put long form content in a series of Tweets is a trend that needs to die. It's so awful to consume. Just post it somewhere and link to it. [1]: Different companies use a different formula for this but it's typically approximately the closing price at or before the time of joining. [2]: https://www.amazon.jobs/en/landing_pages/benefitsoverview-us https://www.amazon.jobs/en/landing_pages/benefitsoverview-us [3]: https://www.amazon.jobs/en/landing_pages/pto-overview-us https://www.amazon.jobs/en/landing_pages/pto-overview-us
  • lowiqengineer 6y ago
    I’m currently an Amazon engineer - it was my first job out of college. I worked really damn hard to get this job, and now everyone (including you, a Facebook/Google employee) seem to think I’m stupid and inferior because I didn’t pass my Google/Facebook onsites. I’ve studied for hundreds of hours but the best company I’ve cracked is a hedge fund. It’s comments like these that make me wonder if I should just end it all.
• Eridrus 6y ago
  This seems like the sort of thing that software engineers should be organizing around and calling their state representatives about to make these unenforceable. Has anyone tried doing so already?
  • paulgb 6y ago
    California already has: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/understanding-californias-ban-on-non-compete-agreements_b_58af1626e4b0e5fdf6196f04 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/understanding-californias-ban... I think NY would have a harder time doing this without losing employers in finance. A lot of IP in algorithmic trading can't be protected by patents since they only work if they are kept secret. Non-competes are essentially the only mechanism for IP protection of trading strategies.
    • jen20 6y ago
      Non-competes in finance are often _much_ more reasonable - mandated "gardening leave" rather than a restriction on post-employment activity.
    • Eridrus 6y ago
      Most finance is not algorithmic trading, and we already have trade secret law for this sort of thing.
• thayne 6y ago
  > Some people are saying that these clauses are known upfront before joining If you live in a country/state where this is legal, that doesn't really matter, because practically every company has non-compete clauses, and your options are to agree or be self-employed the or unemployed.
  • c2h5oh 6y ago
    Or work for smaller companies. I've had 100% success rate negotiating having it removed at companies <50 employees so far (and 0% success rate at companies >500 employees)
    • thayne 6y ago
      assuming you get a job offer at a smaller company.
• caiobegotti 6y ago
  Honestly I don't understand why people still go to work for FAANG in 2020 after so many recurrent (or past now exposed) scandals regarding hiring, non-competes, poaching, crazy NDAs etc. A huge salary and a golden mark in your CV can't be the only thing that matters in a career given all the internal dirty politics hitting the HN front page every once in a while, come on.
  • waheoo 6y ago
    Its quite worthwhile. It easily validates your cv out of a handful of other candidates. Not like you have to stay there long.
  • koheripbal 6y ago
    I have seem all of these same practices at companies of all sizes, in various industries.
  • rantwasp 6y ago
    money. it’s that simple. people work there for money
• hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  It is interesting to hear the regional takes on this. In Texas, after being involved in the startup world for 20 years, I have never seen a company that didn't require a non-compete - they're just totally ubiquitous. And the ironic thing is all these politicians talk about wanting to turn some place into "the next Silicon Valley", when much research had been written on the fact that the unenforceability of non-competes in CA is one of the biggest factors in the rise of SV. The tech corridor near Boston had lots of the same "base ingredients" as SV, but non-competes made the startup scene there much less dynamic.
  • jen20 6y ago
    I'd imagine the prevailing interest when it comes to this in Texas is that of the energy corridor companies than Austin startups?
  • ipnon 6y ago
    It's just lip service to gain an advantage against political opponents who can't be bothered to even discuss increasing technology in the local economy. The policies themselves won't change until practically all representatives are elected on a technology platform. The policies of Silicon Valley followed the local economy's dependence on technology; non-competes were abolished in Silicon Valley because local politicians couldn't survive without vocally supporting the technology industry.
    • hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
      > The policies of Silicon Valley followed the local economy's dependence on technology; non-competes were abolished in Silicon Valley because local politicians couldn't survive without vocally supporting the technology industry. Sorry, but that is nonsense. California's primary law against non-competes, section 16600, was passed in 1872. In many ways California was just lucky. An intensely dynamic entrepreneurial hotspot grew up due to the environment in CA at the time, not the other way around.
      • ipnon 6y ago
• karaterobot 6y ago
  In Washington State, where Amazon is headquartered, there is a recent law that makes noncompete agreements unenforceable for employees with incomes at or below $100k per year (RCW 49.62). The original threshold for this was $180k, but Amazon lobbied to change it, presumably because too many of their employees would have been covered under it. Makes sense from their position, but it should be known that they lobby to limit the legal protections of their own employees.
  • ponker 6y ago
    Amazon limits cash Corp to $160K and pays the rest in stock so the law might have covered 100% of their employees. Would have expected to see them quickly take that to $190K though.
    • tylerhou 6y ago
      Seriously doubt that stock is not counted as income for the Seattle law, as stock vesting is reported on your W2.
      • meddlepal 6y ago
        Pretty sure this depends on the types of stock that are granted (e.g. RSU vs ISO).
        • re 6y ago
          Amazon grants RSUs which are absolutely counted as compensation/earnings for the purpose of this law. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.62.010 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.62.010
          • tekknik 6y ago
            But only in the year they were vested. If you’re not in an vesting year then it doesn’t count.
  • 6y ago
• honksillet 6y ago
  I'd never heard of an L1B visa so here is one of the top DDG search results. "An L-1 visa is a visa document used to enter the United States for the purpose of work in L-1 status. It is a non-immigrant visa, and is valid for a relatively short amount of time, from three months to five years, based on a reciprocity schedule. With extensions, the maximum stay is seven years. L-1 visas are available to employees of an international company with offices in both the United States and abroad. The visa allows such foreign workers to relocate to the corporation's US office after having worked abroad for the company for at least one continuous year within the previous three prior to admission in the US...." Really it sounds like this is a Visa for a US company to temporarily bring in someone from outside the country, a person who is already an employee of the company.
  • noisy_boy 6y ago
    The typical approach to handle the temporary aspect is to arrive via L1B and apply for H1B which doesn't have the maximum stay restrictions. Employee friendly companies tend to help with application. The other visa in a similar category is L1A but the employee needs to be of managerial grade. However, the green card approval process is quicker (subject to various factors including country of origin etc). All this from some various discussions I've been in so I may be not be entirely accurate.
    • refurb 6y ago
      H1B which doesn't have the maximum stay restrictions H1B is valid for a maximum of 6 years. Then you need to leave for a set period of time.
      • noisy_boy 6y ago
        I stand corrected. To add, usually the H1B holders begin the green card process as soon as possible (with the help of their company). Technically, at least 365 days prior to the day in which the six-year limit was reached and then H1B visa may be extended in one-year increments.
  • mtmail 6y ago
• tombert 6y ago
  I don't work for Amazon, but a similarly giant tech company, and I idiotically signed the non-compete because I was excited to work for one of the brand-name companies. The non-compete specifically says that I am not allowed to open source any software, and until very recently, I wasn't allowed to even open a Github issue. The wording specifically says that they own anything I conceive of while working for them. I shouldn't have signed it, I'm always working on personal projects and it's kind of depressing that I only realistically have the option to either donate my project to my corporation so that, at best, they own all rights to it and probably never open source it, OR not-release anything so that I have plausible deniability if/when I quit.
  • rhn_mk1 6y ago
    What makes you stay there?
    • tombert 6y ago
      Right now I'm basically just waiting for some more stock to vest. After that I'll probably try and find a job where their non-compete isn't insane.
  • jrockway 6y ago
    Which company is this?
    • tombert 6y ago
      Actually mentioning that publicly is against the policy. I can tell you via email if you promise not to post it publicly. (Address in profile)
      • jrockway 6y ago
        Nah, if you can get in trouble I don't want to know.
      • wccrawford 6y ago
• ashtonkem 6y ago
  This is one of the greatest things about CA, these kinds of clauses are unenforceable, so I don’t have to even worry about them. Of course California exposes the deep hypocrisy of the way these clauses are sold. If non competes were truly critical to company success, they wouldn’t hire anyone in CA.
• tinyhouse 6y ago
  I think the fact they added the non-compete after is not the issue. Also the fact he was told otherwise prior to relocating. My guess it's a standard thing for all US based workers as he was told and there was a "bug" in the process. I doubt it was done intentionally. The issue is the states that allow this to happen. Capitalist America.
  • wolfi1 6y ago
    I read it that way that it was after relocation but before the beginning of the job in Seattle
    • tinyhouse 6y ago
      Right, I understand that. All I'm saying it's not the important issue. The important issue is that it's legal in the first place to restrict employees in such ways.
• wolfi1 6y ago
  non compete clauses are even a thing in the EU. but as the are mostly too broad termed they are not enforceable, at least in my country
• user_agent 6y ago
  I just wanted to quickly thank you people for making topics like this one widely discussed, so I can easily make a decision to blacklist that company as my future, potential employer, saving time for more reasonable options!
• j45 6y ago
  Classy. Will anyone upset by this cancel their prime subscription?
• cycop 6y ago
  Unenforceable , Amazon provides so many services across the internet a judge would laugh at any non-compete lawsuit against an employee.
  • sneak 6y ago
    Are you a trial lawyer with experience in this field, or is this a lay opinion?
• johngalt 6y ago
  Don't directly refuse the non-compete. They will just say it is non-negotiable "to protect the company" etc... Instead insist that they include a severance clause that continues to pay you during the term of the non-compete. Either they are serious about the non-compete and will pay you, or they will drop it at that point. Don't just sign away a deal point for nothing in exchange.
  • ThrustVectoring 6y ago
    The nice part about making a good-faith effort to negotiate the non-compete is that if the negotiation fails, that is excellent documentation that it is a contract of adhesion and as such unconscionable to public policy.
    • shostack 6y ago
      But if you have to accept it to get the job, does that not render your point moot? Or is your point you could accept it then ignore it because of this good faith attempt?
      • fgonzag 6y ago
        "An adhesion contract is a contract drafted by one party (usually a business with stronger bargaining power) and signed by another party (usually one with weaker bargaining power, usually a consumer in need of goods or services). The second party typically does not have the power to negotiate or modify the terms of the contract. Adhesion contracts are commonly used for matters involving insurance, leases, deeds, mortgages, automobile purchases, and other forms of consumer credit. Courts carefully scrutinize adhesion contracts and sometimes void certain provisions because of the possibility of unequal bargaining power, unfairness, and unconscionability. Factoring into such decisions include the nature of the agreement, the possibility of unfair surprise, lack of notice, unequal bargaining power, and substantive unfairness. Courts often use the “doctrine of reasonable expectations” as a justification for invalidating parts or all of an adhesion contract: the weaker party will not be held to adhere to contract terms that are beyond what the weaker party would have reasonably expected from the contract, even if what he or she reasonably expected was outside the strict letter of agreement." Trying to negotiate (in writing) and getting it denied makes it abundantly clear it is a contract of adhesion. This significantly weakens the contract's validity on abnormal clauses.
• justDankin 6y ago
  A question I have as a fresh graduate in the industry. For a company like Amazon, wouldn't a huge chunk of tech companies be competitors? Does the non compete span the entire product range of Amazon's services, or just the team/project you were working on? For example, Amazon and Google both have cloud services. If I'm working for AWS, would my non compete prevent me from working for Google, or just Google cloud?
  • wikibob 6y ago
    > For a company like Amazon, wouldn't a huge chunk of tech companies be competitors? Yes. You nailed it. Exactly. That's why these non-compete agreements are unconscionable.
• SecurityMinded 6y ago
  L-1 visas, A or B doesn't need non-compete. Employee is already tied to the employer. That visa is not a portable visa like H-1B. This is all a tempest in a teapot, nothing more.
  • DVassallo 6y ago
    The L-1 visa is portable to a green card though.
    • harpratap 6y ago
      Does it need your employer to be on board with the idea that you want to become a permanent resident? Or can you apply as an individual for a green card?
      • DVassallo 6y ago
        Yes it’s the employer that sponsors you.
• justaseattleguy 6y ago
  Amazon is remarkable because they have such a comprehensively awful reputation when it comes to recruiting and retention. I know many Amazon employees and the following is the norm: - Multiple manager changes after joining within months - Moving teams and offices within six months - Lifetime survival of 18 months On average - Intense pressure to hit high goals For whatever reason, they got away with running a white collar sweatshop for a decade. These Non compete changes and lawsuits Like the recent one against a former exec who defected to google signal a shift. Their model of thrashing their employees is now under pressure as Google Cloud have opened offices literally across the street and talent is streaming over there. Likewise, Microsoft has done a MUCH better job at managing and balancing forces of diversity, government, political pressure as well as local citizenship and international relations. Hate to say it but people get old and have kids. They can’t deal with the pressure. Microsoft and google offer better work life balance. Compared to Microsoft, Amazon has been making mistake after mistake with the government. Buying the Washington Post, for example, was an extremely political maneuver, it certainly was not to “support the news” as Bezos claimed and annoying trump resulted in the loss of the JEDI contract. Another four years of Trump and Amazon will be lucky to ever see another government contract ever again. Same with the bungled campus II in New York. I think they must be under pressure for talent now to be resorting to and enforcing Non competes, my experience with them is they have hired everyone that is not nailed down. Don’t get me wrong, the talent level there is extremely high. Competition for talent is a good thing. Their response to try to use force is going to get them in trouble.
• frellus 6y ago
  L1B visas are as abusive as anything... can't transfer, and now they want to impose non-compete? These companies like Amazon, Apple, etc. really screw the L1B people. Not only are they terrified of loosing their jobs, but now even if they get sponsored for permanent residency they cannot work for someone else? Freaking everyone "competes" with Amazon. I don't believe this is legal in California, but I could be wrong.
• LockAndLol 6y ago
  Is that valid when moving back to the EU? And are there any actual benefits of working at large multi-nationals besides a fat check and name recognition?
• Pfhreak 6y ago
  I consistently see discussions about tech unions being bad things, but I'm equally seeing articles like this where a company holds all the power to keep you unemployed. This seems like exactly the sort of thing I'd want a tech union (or guild or association or collective bargaining unit) to be out fighting against.
• einpoklum 6y ago
  Is it even possible to not-compete with Amazon anymore? They're kind of into everything.
• vinay_ys 6y ago
  L1B is a very bad visa. If you come on that to US and you get sucked into the green card trap, you are basically screwed. You will see a lot of people on L1 visas taking on more crap at work because they can't quit or change jobs easily because of how that visa rules work.
• JGM_io 6y ago
  The imbalance of power
• BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  Are non-compete on the US unilateral? We have them in France as well, but enforcing one means that you have to pay someone for the time of the enforcement.
• tripzilch 6y ago
  I'm not really sure what he expected when moving to the US? Employee protection? Powerful corporations checked from screwing you over? What was he thinking? "Yeah that stuff happens all the time in the US, but surely when I move there it won't apply to me" -- and if they did believe they were owed this protection, on what basis? Who was going to protect his employee rights for him? That US corporation he works for which has to be forced to provide such rights when they are operating outside the US? Hahaha This sounds like someone who could move to work in Qatar and be upset they end up working to support a system of slavery.