18 ms·

Interesting and pretty damning. Some key excerpts: > Amazon gave me their ﬁnal offer: 4 weeks of severance for 18 months of adhering to the broad non-compete t

by tomp 12y ago

Interesting and pretty damning. Some key excerpts: > Amazon gave me their ﬁnal offer: 4 weeks of severance for 18 months of adhering to the broad non-compete that would not allow me to earn a living in my ﬁeld, and further explained that if I didn't accept their ﬁnal offer, Amazon would sue me for tens of thousands of dollars in relocation expenses. Employee complained, was fired, Amazon insists s/he can't work for another 1 1/2 years (I know that's legal in the US, but it's still asshole-ish behaviour). > What we found was that there were tens of thousands of Kindle e-ink owners, the vast majority who hadn’t even seen the promotion details (as customers had to click on the ad to see the details), were qualifying for the $10 Gift card because every day, there are thousands of customers who own a Kindle and already have Discover set as their 1-click default card, that buy a digital good on Amazon in the ordinary course of their activity. > Meanwhile the promotion continued to run and within a few more days we had gone over the $500,000 budget. Discover Card pays $500 000 for a campaign that gives $10 to each user who switches default 1-click card to Discover. Amazon gives $10 mostly to users who already have Discover as default. Munira, the manager, lies to Discover about that. > Munira was forced to admit under oath in deposition [...] that she falsiﬁed her educational record on her resume to Amazon and all her previous employers - claiming to have earned a Bachelors and Masters degree in Computer Science from Stanford when in fact she earned no degrees at all. Munira is a liar/cheater, and still employed at Amazon.

narsil 12y ago
The PIP being used to prevent transferring is pretty underhanded as well.
- sedachv 12y ago
  Not surprising. Happened to someone I know at Google.
  - jagreer 12y ago
    happens all the time at google :(
MrBuddyCasino 12y ago
Very interesting - do you have a quotable source for that? Because she's still claiming to be a Stanford alumni in her LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/munirarahemtulla https://www.linkedin.com/in/munirarahemtulla
- us0r 12y ago
  If you read the letter it has a deposition transcript with her admitting it. Page 19. "Munira was forced to admit under oath in deposition, several months after my termination, that she falsiﬁed her educational record on her resume to Amazon and all her previous employers - claiming to have earned a Bachelors and Masters degree in Computer Science from Stanford when in fact she earned no degrees at all."
  - akavel 12y ago
    Also an interesting commentary quote from the page 21 of the letter: "And in fact, even after ﬁnding out about Munira’s lies regarding her educational background and other issues I raised before my termination, Jeff Blackburn represented in his deposition that Munira was given a promotion, even though according to Amazon’s policies, falsiﬁcation of personnel records is a Tier 1 offense likely resulting in immediate termination" The letter reads awesomely, totally like a good book.
  - arh68 12y ago
    This is made stranger by the fact the Jeff Blackburn says he knew she hadn't completed the degrees, and hired her anyways. And he went to Stanford. For an MBA. Honestly this looks really bad for Amazon, partly because it's obvious how expected and systemic this behavior is > At the end of the day. You should do what you need to do to maximize free cash flow for the device. Do what you need to do to make more money
    - FireBeyond 12y ago
      "I know she hasn't completed it yet" - this guys words are 100% weasel. Well, yes, we assume you would be aware that she hadn't yet completed a course (her Masters) she couldn't enroll in yet because she had not completed her undergraduate. This is something my step-daughter could understand, especially with her education as a lawyer (not yet completed, as she is seven years old).
masklinn 12y ago
> U know that's legal in the US Not really. The company can add any stupid clause it wants to the contract, but in the vast majority of states which allow NCA at all for employees they're heavily restricted in time and space, and must not prevent employees from earning a living. In Washington State, NCAs are enforceable if they're "validly formed and reasonable" (Racine v. Bender), although a big issue there is you have to go to court to see whether this specific NCA is enforceable or not. I would guess it's not (because it's completely unreasonable), and Amazon's behaviour is not entirely dissimilar to SLAPP. edit: in fact, Amazon was essentially told to fuck off in what seems to be a different NCA case: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a5cde10f-9ca3-43c7-bfa9-5eb13db9d17d http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a5cde10f-9ca3-... > When Amazon learned that Mr. Powers joined Google, it first engaged in discussions with Google about Mr. Powers' employment. Following those discussions, Amazon sought injunctive relief through a Washington state court. After Mr. Powers successfully removed the case to a Federal District Court in Washington, Amazon moved for a preliminary injunction against Mr. Powers to enforce the non-compete restrictions. > The court denied most of Amazon's requests, and upheld the non-compete restriction only to the extent that it prohibited Mr. Powers, for a period of 9 months from the date he last had access to Amazon confidential information, from servicing any customer as to which he had obtained confidential information* during his employment at Amazon (this restriction was essentially the same restriction as the one Mr. Power voluntarily agreed to upon joining Google). > […] > With respect to the validity of the non-compete restrictions, the court next determined that the restrictions were enforceable only to the extent that they sought to prevent Mr. Powers from working with his former Amazon customers. The court also determined, however, that Amazon's attempt to uphold the more general "worldwide" ban against competition — i.e., not tied to specific customers — was unenforceable because it was unreasonable and Amazon failed to show how such a restriction was necessary to protect its business. (emphasis mine)
- TheCapn 12y ago
  I'm curious if you're aware of any precedent on how NC clauses hold up when the company terminates contract (such in this case as a firing). Typically I see the enforcement matter more when the employee voluntarily leaves, not when they're forced to. To me the entire requirement of 'consideration' falls flat on its face where they've essentially webbed a case of ruining someone's livelihood by preventing them from finding work after termination all the while giving a plainly inadequate severance.
mercurial 12y ago
> Munira is a liar/cheater, and still employed at Amazon. That's not the best part. The best part is that somebody who directly reported to Jeff Bezos essentially told the team to go ahead and keep lying to the customer in order to "maximize free cash flow for the device". Which isn't something you can spin into yet another "rogue employee" case in which "we'll review our policies".
- tomp 12y ago
  That as well, but the evidence of that is much more anecdotal, and open to interpretation.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    I don't know about the "open to interpretation" part. He clearly knew about it according to the transcript. Anything else than telling them to go to the customer and explain the issue is complicity of fraud.
- nl 12y ago
  I didn't really interpret it that way (although I understand the author did). The division head asked something like "are we doing the right thing here?", and also said something like "we need to make money". From the transcript provided it sounded like he didn't have the complete information about how they were screwing Discovery over: it sounded more like he was told that the campaign was costing Discovery more than Discovery had expected, but the plan was for Amazon to tell Discovery that they wanted to use money Discovery had already budgeted (and spent?) with Amazon but hadn't received a complete campaign for. I've seen that kind of deal done before, and there isn't anything wrong with it provided both parties are transparent about it.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    > The division head asked something like "are we doing the right thing here?", and also said something like "we need to make money". That's not the message I get from "At the end of the day, you should do what you need to do to maximize free cash flow for the device." The priorities are clear.
danielweber 12y ago
Munira is a liar/cheater, and still employed at Amazon. I'm still a little disturbed as to why I'm seeing her dragged through the mud on a top link on HN. We aren't a gossip site, so why is this "confidential" letter being shared amongst the community at this time? What context am I missing?
- vixen99 12y ago
  I think that 129 comments when I last looked, answers your concern.
- edraferi 12y ago
  The story is compelling because Amazon's treatment of Kivin is a relevant warning to HN readers, who sympathize with technical employees who are victimized by their employers. In this respect, it's similar to posts about the massive collusion between Google, Apple etc to suppress wages. The use of Munira's real name isn't even necessary. S/he is just the hand of the corporation. It valuable for each HN reader to think about who Munira might be in their work place, and defend themselves appropriately.
  - sremani 12y ago
    I disagree, too many of these articles leave the wrong-doers unnamed and unscathed. I am happy Kivin is taking names and calling the whole thing for what it is. Amazon gave a 4-week severance and 18month non-compete clause, which falls even below than unfair.
- adventured 12y ago
  This appears to be a lot deeper than Munira. It appears to indicate that there is serious culture rot at Amazon. That is an issue worthy of discussion on HN in my opinion, for numerous reasons. Such culture rot type discussions have occurred surrounding a lot of other companies, including Microsoft, IBM, HP, and so on.
  - tubasaur 12y ago
    You misunderstand. This isn't culture rot, this IS the culture at Amazon. The only way to get ahead is to step on the neck of your teammates, because at review time the group is graded on a curve. Somebody's getting a bad review (even if the entire team is doing well), so you had better make sure it's not you. (source - worked at Lab126 for 18 months)
nihaody 12y ago
Non-competes may be legal but they almost never hold water, especially if you're new job is in a different state. I know this was Washington, and I'm unfamiliar with the laws there, but I know in California it's nearly impossible to enforce a non-compete clause. [Here's a good read on the topic.](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/noncompete-clauses-increasingly-pop-up-in-array-of-jobs.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/noncompete-clause...)
- poopsintub 12y ago
  Amazon should be smart enough to know they can't put in a clause that's too far-reaching and preventing people from working anywhere in the world. I view it as more or less of a threat and nothing more. They wouldn't come after you if you walked across the street to Microsoft, Yahoo, or Apple. It happens all of the time.
  - angdis 12y ago
    I'm sure it does, it does everywhere else. But I think things are a bit different and higher stakes with executive level folks like the the one in question here. 18 months is not an eternity if one can "afford it". Ironically, that's what probably gave him prodigious free time to pursue legal action.
  - jackgavigan 12y ago
    > Amazon should be smart enough to know they can't put in a clause that's too far-reaching and preventing people from working anywhere in the world. Actually, they can put in such a clause. There's a difference between "unenforceable" and "illegal". There's nothing to prevent Amazon from including such a clause in the contract, even if it is clearly unenforceable. The worst case scenario, from Amazon's perspective, is that a court simply rules that the clause is unenforceable (as happened in the example masklinn gave https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8600939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8600939 ). The best case scenario is that Amazon can frighten an ex-employee with the threat of legal action if he accepts a job with a competitor. Even if the ex-employee knows that a court will likely rule the clause is unenforceable, he has to decide whether he wants to go to the hassle and expense of fighting Amazon in court. Amazon could also use the clause as a pretext to dissuade potential employers from hiring the ex-employee. Again, while the potential employer might realise that the clause is unenforceable, they have to decide whether they want to take the risk of hiring someone who will then be sued by Amazon (while it may not affect the potential employer directly, the new employee will inevitably be distracted by the court case). I would never recommend that anyone sign an employment contract with a non-compete clause, even if it's clearly unenforceable. Even setting aside the potential legal hassle if it goes to court, you want to think about why they've included such a clause in the contract. Either they don't realise that it's unenforceable (in which case you have to question how competent they are), or they know it's unenforceable but don't care (which suggests that they plan to use it to frighten/bully you, as described above). Recently, I turned down a job because the company included a clause in the employment contract under which I would have been prevented from engaging in "any activity" that competed with the company (or its related companies), anywhere in the world, for two years after I left the company. In the relevant legal jurisdiction (Switzerland), non-compete clauses are legal but "must be appropriately restricted with regard to place, time and scope such that it does not unfairly compromise the employee’s future economic activity". This one clearly wasn't. Effectively, it would have prevented me from working in banking or fintech, which is pretty much all that I've done for the last 14 years. I consulted an employment lawyer, who confirmed that it would definitely be thrown out if it ever went to court, so I pushed back. I have zero problem with clauses that prohibit me from poaching clients or hiring other employees but if a company's hiring me for my expertise and experience that I've gained before going to work for them, I don't think it's reasonable for them to try to prevent me from using that same expertise and experience at another company if I leave them. In the end, they refused to remove or alter the clause, so I turned down the job.
klunger 12y ago
It looks like Munira attended Stanford as an undergraduate, as she is an alumni of the Mayfield Fellows program [1]. However, it is not clear whether she graduated. [1] http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/mfp/cgi-bin/mfpalumni/may_view2.php?id=95 http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/mfp/cgi-bin/mfpalumni/may_view...
rrggrr 12y ago
Totally unacceptable and as much of my company's ~$4,000/mo spend with Amazon as possible is going to disappear if Munira isn't terminated. I've also passed this post along to someone I know at Discover possibly in a position to do something about it, though I can't imagine they're not already aware of it.
abalone 12y ago
> Discover Card pays $500 000 for a campaign that gives $10 to each user who switches default 1-click card to Discover. Actually, no. This is the key twist that changes the whole picture. It is only his editorializing that claims the point of the campaign was to convert 1-click defaults. But he is the only one claiming that. He himself notes that the campaign was not set up that way. It was set up to promote Discover card by rewarding all 1-click usage. Furthermore the response from Amazon notes that they reviewed the progress of the campaign with Discover and Discover was cool with continuing, provided it was narrowed to Fire users and capped at the original budget. [1] [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-lawsuit-kivin-varghese-2014-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-lawsuit-kivin...
- tomp 12y ago
  > But he is the only one claiming that. And who claims otherwise? From the article you referenced: > Business Insider reached out to Amazon and Discover, neither commented. I, personally, find it quite hard to believe that Discover would be gifting users $10 without any apparent benefit, not even branding! Also, if what you're saying is true, why hasn't Amazon shared the detailed statistics with Discover? Why have all his superiors acted in such shady ways (judging from the emails)? Also, if anyone is doing shitty editorializing, its BI: > He decides to stay home sick for the rest of the week Because people decide to get sick, right. I don't really see a point in providing BI as a reference, as it has no other sources than the original source.
  - abalone 12y ago
    Actually BI cited other sources, namely Amazon's response and further email evidence from the lawsuit, which was somehow omitted from Kivin's document. In it the Amazon SVP statement notes that the campaign was set up to pay $10 as a reward to Discover card users, not tied to 1-click conversions. He also notes this was reviewed with Discover mid-promotion and they elected to continue within budget. There is of course some promotional benefit to that, and it's not unusual in the card industry. While some card benefits are conditionally offered to new signups (e.g. promo APR), most are offered to the entire class (e.g. cashback rewards).
timcederman 12y ago
It doesn't sound like part of the deal was for 1-click defaults to be changed. It sounds like there was an assumption this would happen implicitly by giving it to everyone, but they underestimated how many Discover card users were already on 1-click: The promotion was structured in a way where anyone with a Kindle, who used their Discover card to buy a digital good (e.g. mp3 or movie), would get a $10 Amazon Gift Card. The reason the good had to be digital is because to buy a digital good you need to use your 1-click default card, and Discover’s primary objective for this promotion was to get users who had a Discover card, to make it their 1-click default so Discover could be the card of choice for holiday shopping over the course of the fourth quarter. That was the only way Discover could justify spending $10 when someone ordered a $1 .mp3 music ﬁle.

by tomp 12y ago

narsil 12y ago

The PIP being used to prevent transferring is pretty underhanded as well.

sedachv 12y ago
Not surprising. Happened to someone I know at Google.
- jagreer 12y ago
  happens all the time at google :(

MrBuddyCasino 12y ago

Very interesting - do you have a quotable source for that? Because she's still claiming to be a Stanford alumni in her LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/munirarahemtulla https://www.linkedin.com/in/munirarahemtulla

us0r 12y ago
If you read the letter it has a deposition transcript with her admitting it. Page 19. "Munira was forced to admit under oath in deposition, several months after my termination, that she falsiﬁed her educational record on her resume to Amazon and all her previous employers - claiming to have earned a Bachelors and Masters degree in Computer Science from Stanford when in fact she earned no degrees at all."
- akavel 12y ago
  Also an interesting commentary quote from the page 21 of the letter: "And in fact, even after ﬁnding out about Munira’s lies regarding her educational background and other issues I raised before my termination, Jeff Blackburn represented in his deposition that Munira was given a promotion, even though according to Amazon’s policies, falsiﬁcation of personnel records is a Tier 1 offense likely resulting in immediate termination" The letter reads awesomely, totally like a good book.
- arh68 12y ago
  This is made stranger by the fact the Jeff Blackburn says he knew she hadn't completed the degrees, and hired her anyways. And he went to Stanford. For an MBA. Honestly this looks really bad for Amazon, partly because it's obvious how expected and systemic this behavior is > At the end of the day. You should do what you need to do to maximize free cash flow for the device. Do what you need to do to make more money
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    "I know she hasn't completed it yet" - this guys words are 100% weasel. Well, yes, we assume you would be aware that she hadn't yet completed a course (her Masters) she couldn't enroll in yet because she had not completed her undergraduate. This is something my step-daughter could understand, especially with her education as a lawyer (not yet completed, as she is seven years old).

masklinn 12y ago

> U know that's legal in the US Not really. The company can add any stupid clause it wants to the contract, but in the vast majority of states which allow NCA at all for employees they're heavily restricted in time and space, and must not prevent employees from earning a living. In Washington State, NCAs are enforceable if they're "validly formed and reasonable" (Racine v. Bender), although a big issue there is you have to go to court to see whether this specific NCA is enforceable or not. I would guess it's not (because it's completely unreasonable), and Amazon's behaviour is not entirely dissimilar to SLAPP. edit: in fact, Amazon was essentially told to fuck off in what seems to be a different NCA case: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a5cde10f-9ca3-43c7-bfa9-5eb13db9d17d http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a5cde10f-9ca3-... > When Amazon learned that Mr. Powers joined Google, it first engaged in discussions with Google about Mr. Powers' employment. Following those discussions, Amazon sought injunctive relief through a Washington state court. After Mr. Powers successfully removed the case to a Federal District Court in Washington, Amazon moved for a preliminary injunction against Mr. Powers to enforce the non-compete restrictions. > The court denied most of Amazon's requests, and upheld the non-compete restriction only to the extent that it prohibited Mr. Powers, for a period of 9 months from the date he last had access to Amazon confidential information, from servicing any customer as to which he had obtained confidential information* during his employment at Amazon (this restriction was essentially the same restriction as the one Mr. Power voluntarily agreed to upon joining Google). > […] > With respect to the validity of the non-compete restrictions, the court next determined that the restrictions were enforceable only to the extent that they sought to prevent Mr. Powers from working with his former Amazon customers. The court also determined, however, that Amazon's attempt to uphold the more general "worldwide" ban against competition — i.e., not tied to specific customers — was unenforceable because it was unreasonable and Amazon failed to show how such a restriction was necessary to protect its business. (emphasis mine)

TheCapn 12y ago
I'm curious if you're aware of any precedent on how NC clauses hold up when the company terminates contract (such in this case as a firing). Typically I see the enforcement matter more when the employee voluntarily leaves, not when they're forced to. To me the entire requirement of 'consideration' falls flat on its face where they've essentially webbed a case of ruining someone's livelihood by preventing them from finding work after termination all the while giving a plainly inadequate severance.

mercurial 12y ago

> Munira is a liar/cheater, and still employed at Amazon. That's not the best part. The best part is that somebody who directly reported to Jeff Bezos essentially told the team to go ahead and keep lying to the customer in order to "maximize free cash flow for the device". Which isn't something you can spin into yet another "rogue employee" case in which "we'll review our policies".

tomp 12y ago
That as well, but the evidence of that is much more anecdotal, and open to interpretation.
- mercurial 12y ago
  I don't know about the "open to interpretation" part. He clearly knew about it according to the transcript. Anything else than telling them to go to the customer and explain the issue is complicity of fraud.
nl 12y ago
I didn't really interpret it that way (although I understand the author did). The division head asked something like "are we doing the right thing here?", and also said something like "we need to make money". From the transcript provided it sounded like he didn't have the complete information about how they were screwing Discovery over: it sounded more like he was told that the campaign was costing Discovery more than Discovery had expected, but the plan was for Amazon to tell Discovery that they wanted to use money Discovery had already budgeted (and spent?) with Amazon but hadn't received a complete campaign for. I've seen that kind of deal done before, and there isn't anything wrong with it provided both parties are transparent about it.
- mercurial 12y ago
  > The division head asked something like "are we doing the right thing here?", and also said something like "we need to make money". That's not the message I get from "At the end of the day, you should do what you need to do to maximize free cash flow for the device." The priorities are clear.

danielweber 12y ago

Munira is a liar/cheater, and still employed at Amazon. I'm still a little disturbed as to why I'm seeing her dragged through the mud on a top link on HN. We aren't a gossip site, so why is this "confidential" letter being shared amongst the community at this time? What context am I missing?

vixen99 12y ago
I think that 129 comments when I last looked, answers your concern.
edraferi 12y ago
The story is compelling because Amazon's treatment of Kivin is a relevant warning to HN readers, who sympathize with technical employees who are victimized by their employers. In this respect, it's similar to posts about the massive collusion between Google, Apple etc to suppress wages. The use of Munira's real name isn't even necessary. S/he is just the hand of the corporation. It valuable for each HN reader to think about who Munira might be in their work place, and defend themselves appropriately.
- sremani 12y ago
  I disagree, too many of these articles leave the wrong-doers unnamed and unscathed. I am happy Kivin is taking names and calling the whole thing for what it is. Amazon gave a 4-week severance and 18month non-compete clause, which falls even below than unfair.
adventured 12y ago
This appears to be a lot deeper than Munira. It appears to indicate that there is serious culture rot at Amazon. That is an issue worthy of discussion on HN in my opinion, for numerous reasons. Such culture rot type discussions have occurred surrounding a lot of other companies, including Microsoft, IBM, HP, and so on.
- tubasaur 12y ago
  You misunderstand. This isn't culture rot, this IS the culture at Amazon. The only way to get ahead is to step on the neck of your teammates, because at review time the group is graded on a curve. Somebody's getting a bad review (even if the entire team is doing well), so you had better make sure it's not you. (source - worked at Lab126 for 18 months)

nihaody 12y ago

Non-competes may be legal but they almost never hold water, especially if you're new job is in a different state. I know this was Washington, and I'm unfamiliar with the laws there, but I know in California it's nearly impossible to enforce a non-compete clause. [Here's a good read on the topic.](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/noncompete-clauses-increasingly-pop-up-in-array-of-jobs.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/noncompete-clause...)

poopsintub 12y ago
Amazon should be smart enough to know they can't put in a clause that's too far-reaching and preventing people from working anywhere in the world. I view it as more or less of a threat and nothing more. They wouldn't come after you if you walked across the street to Microsoft, Yahoo, or Apple. It happens all of the time.
- angdis 12y ago
  I'm sure it does, it does everywhere else. But I think things are a bit different and higher stakes with executive level folks like the the one in question here. 18 months is not an eternity if one can "afford it". Ironically, that's what probably gave him prodigious free time to pursue legal action.
- jackgavigan 12y ago
  > Amazon should be smart enough to know they can't put in a clause that's too far-reaching and preventing people from working anywhere in the world. Actually, they can put in such a clause. There's a difference between "unenforceable" and "illegal". There's nothing to prevent Amazon from including such a clause in the contract, even if it is clearly unenforceable. The worst case scenario, from Amazon's perspective, is that a court simply rules that the clause is unenforceable (as happened in the example masklinn gave https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8600939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8600939 ). The best case scenario is that Amazon can frighten an ex-employee with the threat of legal action if he accepts a job with a competitor. Even if the ex-employee knows that a court will likely rule the clause is unenforceable, he has to decide whether he wants to go to the hassle and expense of fighting Amazon in court. Amazon could also use the clause as a pretext to dissuade potential employers from hiring the ex-employee. Again, while the potential employer might realise that the clause is unenforceable, they have to decide whether they want to take the risk of hiring someone who will then be sued by Amazon (while it may not affect the potential employer directly, the new employee will inevitably be distracted by the court case). I would never recommend that anyone sign an employment contract with a non-compete clause, even if it's clearly unenforceable. Even setting aside the potential legal hassle if it goes to court, you want to think about why they've included such a clause in the contract. Either they don't realise that it's unenforceable (in which case you have to question how competent they are), or they know it's unenforceable but don't care (which suggests that they plan to use it to frighten/bully you, as described above). Recently, I turned down a job because the company included a clause in the employment contract under which I would have been prevented from engaging in "any activity" that competed with the company (or its related companies), anywhere in the world, for two years after I left the company. In the relevant legal jurisdiction (Switzerland), non-compete clauses are legal but "must be appropriately restricted with regard to place, time and scope such that it does not unfairly compromise the employee’s future economic activity". This one clearly wasn't. Effectively, it would have prevented me from working in banking or fintech, which is pretty much all that I've done for the last 14 years. I consulted an employment lawyer, who confirmed that it would definitely be thrown out if it ever went to court, so I pushed back. I have zero problem with clauses that prohibit me from poaching clients or hiring other employees but if a company's hiring me for my expertise and experience that I've gained before going to work for them, I don't think it's reasonable for them to try to prevent me from using that same expertise and experience at another company if I leave them. In the end, they refused to remove or alter the clause, so I turned down the job.

klunger 12y ago

It looks like Munira attended Stanford as an undergraduate, as she is an alumni of the Mayfield Fellows program [1]. However, it is not clear whether she graduated. [1] http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/mfp/cgi-bin/mfpalumni/may_view2.php?id=95 http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/mfp/cgi-bin/mfpalumni/may_view...

rrggrr 12y ago

Totally unacceptable and as much of my company's ~$4,000/mo spend with Amazon as possible is going to disappear if Munira isn't terminated. I've also passed this post along to someone I know at Discover possibly in a position to do something about it, though I can't imagine they're not already aware of it.

abalone 12y ago

> Discover Card pays $500 000 for a campaign that gives $10 to each user who switches default 1-click card to Discover. Actually, no. This is the key twist that changes the whole picture. It is only his editorializing that claims the point of the campaign was to convert 1-click defaults. But he is the only one claiming that. He himself notes that the campaign was not set up that way. It was set up to promote Discover card by rewarding all 1-click usage. Furthermore the response from Amazon notes that they reviewed the progress of the campaign with Discover and Discover was cool with continuing, provided it was narrowed to Fire users and capped at the original budget. [1] [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-lawsuit-kivin-varghese-2014-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-lawsuit-kivin...

tomp 12y ago
> But he is the only one claiming that. And who claims otherwise? From the article you referenced: > Business Insider reached out to Amazon and Discover, neither commented. I, personally, find it quite hard to believe that Discover would be gifting users $10 without any apparent benefit, not even branding! Also, if what you're saying is true, why hasn't Amazon shared the detailed statistics with Discover? Why have all his superiors acted in such shady ways (judging from the emails)? Also, if anyone is doing shitty editorializing, its BI: > He decides to stay home sick for the rest of the week Because people decide to get sick, right. I don't really see a point in providing BI as a reference, as it has no other sources than the original source.
- abalone 12y ago
  Actually BI cited other sources, namely Amazon's response and further email evidence from the lawsuit, which was somehow omitted from Kivin's document. In it the Amazon SVP statement notes that the campaign was set up to pay $10 as a reward to Discover card users, not tied to 1-click conversions. He also notes this was reviewed with Discover mid-promotion and they elected to continue within budget. There is of course some promotional benefit to that, and it's not unusual in the card industry. While some card benefits are conditionally offered to new signups (e.g. promo APR), most are offered to the entire class (e.g. cashback rewards).

timcederman 12y ago

It doesn't sound like part of the deal was for 1-click defaults to be changed. It sounds like there was an assumption this would happen implicitly by giving it to everyone, but they underestimated how many Discover card users were already on 1-click: The promotion was structured in a way where anyone with a Kindle, who used their Discover card to buy a digital good (e.g. mp3 or movie), would get a $10 Amazon Gift Card. The reason the good had to be digital is because to buy a digital good you need to use your 1-click default card, and Discover’s primary objective for this promotion was to get users who had a Discover card, to make it their 1-click default so Discover could be the card of choice for holiday shopping over the course of the fourth quarter. That was the only way Discover could justify spending $10 when someone ordered a $1 .mp3 music ﬁle.