5 ms·

Amazon makes even temporary warehouse workers sign 18-month non-competes

22 points by tortilla 12y ago

DiabloD3 12y ago
No, what they have is an unenforceable clause that would not be worth the trouble to enforce. They cannot stop people from getting basic labor jobs, there is no proprietary training for taking things off a shelf and stuffing them into a box and taping the box shut. With the current political climate on HN recently, I expect to be downvoted for my opinion, and I don't care. Congress needs to just pass a bill making non competes illegal already. Slavery is over, indentured servitude is over. We need to stop trying to bring it back.
- xkcd-sucks 12y ago
  But really, how could Amazon enforce it? Do warehouse laborers update Linkedin with their temp jobs? Does somebody besides the IRS maintain a database of current jobs?
  - kjs3 12y ago
    Speculation (IANAL), but I would assume this isn't intended to dissuade Bob the Picker out in the warehouse from jumping ship, it's disincentive for a competitor opening a facility near an Amazon facility and attempting to recruit a large number of Amazon drones to do similar work.
- kjs3 12y ago
  I assume you are not a lawyer, nor have you ever had to deal with these issues in a legal setting. These clauses are precisely as enforceable as your (or your new employers) ability and interest to litigate, and exist as a way to intimidate. In this case they may not get invoked for that one guy who goes over to a competitor, but definitely could if, say, a competitor opens a similar facility and tries to recruit dozens of folks over. Even higher up on the pay scale, I know at least a dozen folks who said "yeah, whatever, unenforceable" and then had to back out of new jobs when the lawyer said "you'll win, eventually, but it's gonna cost you a $5k retainer to start the process". Basically, unless that new employer is going to go to bat for you, a big company can bury you in legal fees in no time. You are right that this is something that needs legislation. Considering the anti-labor client in DC, tho, it ain't gonna happen.
s73v3r 12y ago
This is absolutely disgusting. All of these terms should be immediately struck down. No company should be able to say squat about what you do when they're not paying you.

22 points by tortilla 12y ago

No, what they have is an unenforceable clause that would not be worth the trouble to enforce. They cannot stop people from getting basic labor jobs, there is no proprietary training for taking things off a shelf and stuffing them into a box and taping the box shut. With the current political climate on HN recently, I expect to be downvoted for my opinion, and I don't care. Congress needs to just pass a bill making non competes illegal already. Slavery is over, indentured servitude is over. We need to stop trying to bring it back.

xkcd-sucks 12y ago
But really, how could Amazon enforce it? Do warehouse laborers update Linkedin with their temp jobs? Does somebody besides the IRS maintain a database of current jobs?
- kjs3 12y ago
  Speculation (IANAL), but I would assume this isn't intended to dissuade Bob the Picker out in the warehouse from jumping ship, it's disincentive for a competitor opening a facility near an Amazon facility and attempting to recruit a large number of Amazon drones to do similar work.
kjs3 12y ago
I assume you are not a lawyer, nor have you ever had to deal with these issues in a legal setting. These clauses are precisely as enforceable as your (or your new employers) ability and interest to litigate, and exist as a way to intimidate. In this case they may not get invoked for that one guy who goes over to a competitor, but definitely could if, say, a competitor opens a similar facility and tries to recruit dozens of folks over. Even higher up on the pay scale, I know at least a dozen folks who said "yeah, whatever, unenforceable" and then had to back out of new jobs when the lawyer said "you'll win, eventually, but it's gonna cost you a $5k retainer to start the process". Basically, unless that new employer is going to go to bat for you, a big company can bury you in legal fees in no time. You are right that this is something that needs legislation. Considering the anti-labor client in DC, tho, it ain't gonna happen.

s73v3r 12y ago

This is absolutely disgusting. All of these terms should be immediately struck down. No company should be able to say squat about what you do when they're not paying you.