5 ms·
You should better consult a lawyer than a bunch of random people if this is important for you. Or better yet: not work for a company that tries to make you sign
by forty 5y ago
You should better consult a lawyer than a bunch of random people if this is important for you. Or better yet: not work for a company that tries to make you sign such agreements. And especially not this one :)
I don't know where you live. In my country (France) overly broad non compete are not enforceable, and also you need to be paid during the non compete period (at least 1/3 of your compensation or something like this), which means that employers will almost always waive them except for very rare exceptions.
- MeNotLawyer 5y agoI'm curious then what people do when they leave AWS. Do they just not work for 18 months?
- rsstack 5y agoThey hope AWS won't enforce it. If you aren't very important (L7+, senior management), and you don't work on the _same exact_ project at a competitor, Amazon will probably not attempt to enforce it. Is it right that Amazon are doing this? Hell, no: they're awful for doing this. But that's not even one of the top-five awful things they do to employees.
- atuladhar 5y agoI am genuinely curious -- what _are_ the top-five awful things in your mind?
- eitally 5y agoI think #'s 1 & 2 have to be 1) stack ranking & forced PIPs, and 2) comp policies overall (the stock vesting schedule being part of it, the bonus program covering the first two years being another, and the [until this year] low base salary cap being a third).
- rsstack 5y agoFor office workers, yeah. And disregard to work-life balance on many teams. For warehouse and delivery workers... There's probably a chapter in the Bible just covering that.
- sokoloff 5y agoThe bonus program for the first two years seems like a good/balanced thing for Amazon and the employee (to cover the “missing triangle” of comp while RSU grants begin to stack). I’m not now and never have been an Amazon employee, but the bonus plan just seems sensible to me.
- eli 5y agoOr they live in California where non competes are not enforceable.
- bombcar 5y agoDoes that include non-competes signed before you moved? Could your plan be to quit and move to CA?
- javajosh 5y agoThe law applies to where you are, not where you were, so IANAL but yes, this would work. However, if you moved purely for this purpose, it might be interpreted as fraud. Also, Amazon may sue you in their home venue (Washington, or perhaps Delaware if they are incorporated there). If someone has access to Lexis Nexis it'd be interesting to see how many such cases Amazon has brought, and what happened.
- sulam 5y agoI think it's based on where you are when you sign the agreement, not where you are when you leave. When you say the law applies to where you are, this is all in the action you're taking. The promise not to compete is the action in this case. I am also NAL, but I don't think moving to CA gets you out of non-competes and I've seen evidence of this (one well covered story involved an Amazon exec going to a Bay Area company and getting sued).
- jwsteigerwalt 5y agoIt’s very possible you will not ultimately get the next job. Most competent firms that are near competitors will ask if you are bound by a non-compete as part of the recruiting process. Even if ultimately unenforceable, a “yes” could stop you right there. A “no” could be something problematic with the new employer down the road.
- Throwawayaerlei 5y agoI don't think this can be emphasized enough, it's something I saw a few times in my career which was outside of California. Just having a non-compete that might apply with a former company is enough for many companies to hire someone else who's not got such entanglements. If that company is known for litigating them all the worse.
- jandrese 5y agoHow would your previous employer even know what you are working on in your new company? It's not like you are going to report back to them.
- rsstack 5y agoIf you're important (VP+), it will be in the news. Otherwise, maybe blog posts. They very rarely enforce this. They mostly try to pressure employees into staying at Amazon with these shitty tricks.
- forty 5y agoI'm not sure, but I feel there might be companies that are not selling cloud hosting solutions ;) Also, once again, do check the law where you live. It's very possible that non-compete only apply on stuff you worked on. For example, maybe if you did not work on S3 specifically, you might even be able to work on Google Cloud Storage if all you are considering are companies that make public clouds.
- rsstack 5y ago> I'm not sure, but I feel there might be companies that are not selling cloud hosting solutions ;) > It basically limits me for working for a competitor of ALL of amazon for 18 months. Amazon have an incredible long-tail of badly-made products across the entire software market. They do a lot more than cloud hosting & book delivery.
- CJefferson 5y agoNotice it doesn't say AWS, it says Amazon. That covers a lot more than cloud hosting solutions!
- icedchai 5y agoThey just ignore it, probably. It’s like those agreements that prohibit you from having other jobs. Forget about it.
- infogulch 5y ago> [in France] you need to be paid during the non compete period (at least 1/3 of your compensation or something like this) Oh that's interesting. That is the first time I've seen a justifiable contractual consideration on the employer's side for a non-compete.
- cortesoft 5y agoIt’s the same rule as California… you can have a non-compete, but that time has to be paid for separately than your normal wages.
- d4mi3n 5y agoThis is probably one of the biggest reasons I'm unlikely to leave the state until other parts of the US make similar determinations. It boggles me that we allow employers to have so much control over an employees life after they have left said organization.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoWe almost had the same in Washington state until the big tech companies lobbied (i.e. bribed) corrupt politicians for the law to only apply to those earning under $100k. https://lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/workplace-policies/Non-Compete-Agreements https://lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/workplace-policies/Non-Com...
- labster 5y agoSo non-competes are only for people who can afford a house. I guess it makes sense to give up some freedom for the privilege of owning property.
- mateo1 5y agoThe reasoning obviously is to protect low earners from employers who abuse non-competes. Non-competes are not a complete insanity, as long as the workforce they apply to has (pragmatically, not just theoretically) the ability to chose where to work. And of course they have to acquire some transferable skills or knowledge thanks to their employment. These things are generally very unlikely to happen when the employee is a low earner.