
Amazon added a non-compete after the employee entered the U.S. on an L1B visa - luu
https://twitter.com/dvassallo/status/1157729616259235840
======
karaterobot
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.

~~~
DavidPeiffer
Last week there was discussion either here or on reddit that Amazon has a hard
cap for salary compensation at ~160k in the Seattle area.

Dropping the threshold from 180k to 100k would cause everyone who has maxed
out their salary at Amazon to have enforceable non-competes.

I'd be curious what types of jobs at Amazon were immediately under the 100k
threshold, and what percent of the total Washington state Amazon workforce has
a salary of 100k+?

~~~
throwawaygh
$100K isn't what it used to be. In addition to inflation^1, the death of
pensions means that salary and other liquid compensation is now a much larger
percentage of total compensation.

For example, in our state, teachers and government employees receive a full
pension after 20 years of service. That pension pays out 1/2 of some average
of their previous few year's salary. Even if you retire making a relatively
modest $60K/yr, that pension is still worth north of $50K/yr over those 20
years.

Salaries that don't include pensions aren't _nearly_ as generous as they
sound. $100K/yr without a pension is comparable to $40K/yr with a pension.

\--

1\. Including _absolutely incredible_ housing price inflation in major cities
like Seattle which typical measures of inflation don't properly capture).

~~~
xur17
This begs the question - wouldn't it be advantageous (recruiting wise) for
governments to stop offering pensions, and instead increase base pay?

~~~
a_humean
These are advantages in public sector recruitment. The public sector is never
going to be able to compete with the private sector on pay, but for many
people the promise of steady and reliable income and benefits combinded with a
good retirement plan is very attractive.

~~~
lotsofpulp
> The public sector is never going to be able to compete with the private
> sector on pay

Why? I’d rather pay government employees in cash rather than with future tax
money from my kids as the politicians and government employee unions will
undoubtably understated benefit costs and underfund it.

~~~
freeone3000
They're also paid with tax money _now_ \-- which is much harder to sell, since
that's money now instead of later.

------
djsumdog
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.

~~~
mjmahone17
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.

~~~
ElFitz
Pretty much what we have in France. Over here it doesn't have to be the full
salary; only enough to be deemed "reasonable" by a judge, and judges working
in courts related to employer-employee litigations tend to be more employee
friendly.

If it isn't paid, the non-compete isn't enforceable.

It also requires a few more limits to be enforceable:

\- "reasonably" limited in time

\- geographically limited

\- a specific activity / role

So they usually aren't ever enforced, because most of the time employers don't
find them worth it.

~~~
alistairSH
This should be the happy middle ground.

It covers high-priced sales executives, C-levels, and very senior engineers
just fine. Those are the positions that might reasonably take sensitive
financials or trade secrets with them.

Joe Blow Web-developer? There shouldn't be a need. And if there is, pay him
for the duration.

------
johngalt
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
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
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
"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.

~~~
sobani
Wouldn't it work the other way around in this case?

Since you tried to negotiate about the non-compete it should come as no
surprise that there is a non-compete and you could reasonably expect it to be
enforced. In fact since they signaled that they _really_ want the non-compete,
your expectation of it being enforced should go up.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Preventing surprise and refusing to be complicit in grossly unfair and unequal
negotiations are _separate_ purposes of the courts. The surprise part is more
for dealing with the contracts that are part of everyday life that are too
lengthy and numerous to have everyone read, understand, and agree to
everything. In that case, the courts will enforce what reasonable people would
actually understand and agree to.

------
tombert
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.

~~~
miken123
> The wording specifically says that they own anything I conceive of while
> working for them.

That's quite normal, at least under Dutch labour law. It prevents IP
discussions if an employee does anything outside of the 9-5 working hours, or
anything they were not directly instructed to by their manager.

Of course there can be exceptions, e.g., we exempt open source software by
default, and are open for any discussions on other side projects the employee
may have. But the concept that all your programming work belongs to the
company is not that strange.

Also note that this is not a non-compete, but simply an IP clause.

~~~
tomlu
It's the default at Google, but if you want to have an open source project or
even a side business you can. You have to disclose it first and get sign-off.
This seems reasonable to me and avoids any grey areas.

~~~
ma2rten
That's not true. If you don't use any work resources and it doesn't compete
with google, Google doesn't doesn't own it (at least in California).

The reason they have this progress is that google does so many things that
almost anything could be considered competing with Google.

~~~
saagarjha
> doesn't compete with google

Alphabet has subsidiaries that work in medicine and autonomous vehicles. You
sure your side project isn't competing with the company? You sure you can do
so in court when the company comes after you with its top-notch legal team?

~~~
stale2002
> You sure you can do so in court when the company comes after you with its
> top-notch legal team?

Here is your mistake. The reality is, that they _arent_ going to do that, the
vast majority of the time.

The only time when it _maybe_ might happen, is in far out there situations,
such as, for example, when that self-driving car guy, built his own multi-
hundred million dollar company, on the basis of stolen google documents.

And even _then_ google only went after this guy, _after_ he sold the company
to Uber. Before that, google was perfectly fine with the guy running his mult-
hundred million dollar company.

Are you going to create a multi-hundred million dollar company, on the basis
of literal stolen documents? No? then you almost certainly don't have to worry
about it. Nobody is coming after you.

------
sumanthvepa
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.

~~~
CydeWeys
> 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
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.

~~~
fhrow4484
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-
washin...](https://www.geekwire.com/2016/non-compete-bill-stalls-washington-
state-opposition-business-groups/)

[https://www.geekwire.com/2018/effort-kill-non-competes-
washi...](https://www.geekwire.com/2018/effort-kill-non-competes-washington-
state-fails-leaving-controversial-contracts-intact/)

[https://www.geekwire.com/2019/tech-leaders-sound-off-
washing...](https://www.geekwire.com/2019/tech-leaders-sound-off-washington-
states-new-non-compete-restrictions/)

And the original bills:
[http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Hou...](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2931.pdf)

[http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Hou...](http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1967.pdf)

final bill:
[https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1450&Initiativ...](https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1450&Initiative=false&Year=2019)

~~~
steelframe
When I left Amazon, I also left Washington for California, in large part
because of this. I'm highly specialized, and I wasn't about to take an
18-month hiatus in my career. You would think Washington state would work
harder at keeping their high-tax-revenue tech workers around.

~~~
techsupporter
> You would think Washington state would work harder at keeping their high-
> tax-revenue tech workers around.

Washington State has no income, capital gains, or payroll tax. All we[0] have
are consumption taxes that people with lower incomes are forced to pay more of
as a percentage of their incomes versus people with higher incomes. This is
doubly so since people with higher incomes have the financial leverage to
minimize consumption taxes[1]. There's little tax-based incentive to attract
and retain people with high incomes. If anything, we are somewhat of a drain
on the overall society because we price out and displace people who don't have
those incomes while we pay, on a percentage-of-income basis, comparatively
little back into society relative to what we're earning.

I'm certain some people will come along under me and crow about how this is
the whole reason why they moved to Washington instead of another but I am not
particularly moved by any reasoning someone might put forward.

0 - My bias: I am a very well paid employee living in Seattle so I include
myself in this but am also active in advocacy for levying taxes on myself and
people like me for a more equitable tax system in this city, county, and
state.

1 - Buying in bulk, buying a single higher-cost good that will last longer
than lower-cost goods that must be replaced, evading taxes by traveling or
buying online and accepting the risk of not being held accountable for paying
the consumption tax

~~~
SomewhatLikely
While I also live in Washington and would be fine with raising taxes to be
more equitable, higher taxes here would certainly increase the relative
attractiveness of California. I'm already right on the edge of deciding to
move due to having lived most of my life in sunny regions and really disliking
the gloomy weather here. I don't think that would be a typical response though
as most people would still prefer the lower cost of living in WA.

~~~
techsupporter
> I'm already right on the edge of deciding to move due to having lived most
> of my life in sunny regions and really disliking the gloomy weather here.

I'd say that's valid enough reason to move on its own. I've lived in Seattle
for forever and the weather is one of the things that has kept me here through
economic ups and downs.

The cost of living is only "low" here for people like us who are already doing
very well for ourselves and I'm not at all enjoying the yawing inequity
becoming increasingly wider. I'm not someone who pines for the "better days"
of yesteryear or wants to cling tightly to some treasured local watering hole.
We need a sane tax policy and a sane housing policy otherwise this all comes
to a crashing halt.

------
hn_throwaway_99
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.

~~~
ipnon
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
> 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
I'm going to delete my original comment because it is flat out misinformation.
Thank you for correcting me.

------
kirubakaran
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
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.

------
hodgesrm
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
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.

~~~
steventhedev
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...

------
sschueller
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.

~~~
skizm
All of his wealth is wrapped up in Amazon stock. If he tried to sell 2/3 of
his stock, not only would Amazon's share price tank (the founder is selling
most of his stock), but he would lose control of Amazon and his net worth
would be cut in half or more due to the stock tanking while he was selling.
Jeff Bezos' net worth is simply the amount of shares he controls in Amazon
multiplied by whatever the current price of the stock is. It is entirely
theoretical and there is no real way for him to actually obtain his "net
worth" in cash.

~~~
baxtr
Isn’t that the case with most “high net worth individuals”? I am pretty sure
it is not “entirely theoretical”.

~~~
aliceryhl
Well, many of them sure, but not all of them. For example, Bill Gates has his
wealth distributed across a wide range of investments, which means that Gates'
ability to turn his wealth into cash is much much greater than Jeff's.

As for the theoretical part, billionaires with all of their wealth tied up in
a single company generally only have access to billionaire kind of money
through loans with incredibly generous terms that they pay back by selling a
bit of their stocks every year.

------
Jare
> 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
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
Can they just pay 1 Euro or is there a set formula?

~~~
joyj2nd
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
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)

~~~
wikibob
This is incorrect. Non-competes are enforceable, and are enforced, in the
majority of US states.

~~~
willcipriano
We may be talking about different things. Executives often negotiate a
contract that contains a noncompete. That noncompete has clear consideration
as it was negotiated as part of a total deal of employment, theoretically the
employee is more highly compensated for this term of the contract. However
rank and file employees are often not presented with the noncompete contract
until their first day of work after salary negotiations have already taken
place and the position accepted. Such an agreement probably isn't
enforceable[0] as far as I can read[1] as it's hard to argue its part of the
employment contract as the contract is signed after you are already employed
and have reported for your first day of work[2]. If it was a employment
contract it would've came attached to the offer letter.

[0]"Performance of existing duties is not good consideration" \-
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration)

[1]"The very basic requirements are that the non-compete must (1) be in
writing; (2) be part of an employment contract; (3) be based on valuable
consideration; (4) be reasonable in scope of time and of territory; (5) not be
against public policy." \- [https://lincolnderr.com/is-my-non-compete-
enforceable/](https://lincolnderr.com/is-my-non-compete-enforceable/)

[2]”One of the most common reasons that courts refuse to enforce Non-Competes
is that employers make the mistake of obtaining the agreement from an already-
hired employee without providing the employee with anything of value in
return. Generally, such agreements are unenforceable because the employee did
not receive any additional “consideration.”" \- [https://macelree.com/the-
top-10-mistakes-with-non-competitio...](https://macelree.com/the-
top-10-mistakes-with-non-competition-agreements/)

------
ChrisMarshallNY
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
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
>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?

~~~
stale2002
Making the argument is the wrong phasing. Instead, what he should have said is
"I can almost certainly get away with breaking the non-compete, and it is
unlikely that anyone will notice".

Tech companies are not sending private detectives to follow every engineer
that left the company.

This fantasy world, where major tech companies are preventing random engineers
from leaving to work for other big tech companies, is just not true. It
happens all of the time, and almost nobody gets sued.

Like, I don't know what to tell you. Like half of the engineers that I know,
have job hopped, sometimes multiple times, between these top tech companies.
They aren't being sued.

They go work at microsoft, and then leave for Facebook, or uber, or "insert
rando prestigious tech company here", and I don't know of a single one, of all
of my friend that I know, who has ever been sued for job hopping between top
tech companies as an engineer.

It just does not happen, for the average tech employee, outside of weird,
extreme, egregious cases.

~~~
mamurphy
Do companies enforce every single time? No. Can they try to enforce, and win,
if your manager is upset, dislikes you, or is just a bad manager? Yes. Do they
ever enforce? Sure do[0]. Do you have any data about this or could you find
any article indicating it's safe to not worry about non-competes (if they are
enforceable in your state)? I looked, and I couldn't find any such thing.

Most times the employee is just going to give up, and pursue other
opportunities that the employer can't or won't enforce a non-compete against.
There isn't always going to be a lawsuit.

Have you gone over the detailed career trajectory of all these engineers you
know? Do you think they would volunteer, without prompting, that they couldn't
take XZY job due to a non-compete?

Even if you have had detailed conversations with, say, two dozen people, if
big companies enforce on 5% of people, it's not unheard of that you personally
might not know someone it happened to. That's especially true if you happen to
live in CA, where non-competes are unenforceable.

[0][https://www.geekwire.com/2017/business-personal-amazon-
web-s...](https://www.geekwire.com/2017/business-personal-amazon-web-services-
decides-enforce-non-compete-contracts/)

~~~
rantwasp
all those people are VP level and above. If you’re a VP you can afford the
lawyer. Hell even if you’re an unknown drone (maybe with the exception of
fresh out of college people) you can probably afford the lawyer.

~~~
willcipriano
The point is it has a chilling effect[0], fast food restaurants aren't having
employees sign noncompetes[1] because they think they have specialized
knowledge, the purpose is to reduce churn and therefore training costs.

[0][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect)

[1][https://www.foodandwine.com/news/fast-food-non-compete-
agree...](https://www.foodandwine.com/news/fast-food-non-compete-agreement-
inquiry)

~~~
stale2002
Ok, so, that just means that people need to be more informed.

The reality is that people move between top tech companies all the time. It is
extremely common. And basically nobody is having those non competes enforced,
for a random engineering job.

------
frellus
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.

------
annoyingnoob
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
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
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.

------
claudeganon
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.

------
kmclean
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.

~~~
loeg
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
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.

------
dragosmocrii
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
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.

------
justDankin
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
> 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.

------
jakub_g
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
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.

------
sgummaluri
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-...](https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/why-i-turned-down-an-aws-job-
offer/)

------
vinay_ys
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.

------
arxv33
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
L1B is a dead-end, how do you plan to leave amazon and still stay in the US?

~~~
arxv33
I have since got the Green Card/permanent residency.

~~~
iaw
Off-topic: Congratulations! Welcome to the country.

------
thayne
> 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
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
assuming you get a job offer at a smaller company.

------
Swizec
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
So if you move from Seattle to SF then would you be free to work at another
company of your choosing?

~~~
cortesoft
You could still be sued in Seattle even if you move to California.
Jurisdiction is based on where you entered the contract.

~~~
ta17711771
But would Cali extradite?

~~~
john-shaffer
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.

------
Eridrus
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
California already has: [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/understanding-
californias-ban...](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/understanding-californias-
ban-on-non-compete-agreements_b_58af1626e4b0e5fdf6196f04)

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
Non-competes in finance are often _much_ more reasonable - mandated "gardening
leave" rather than a restriction on post-employment activity.

------
newbie578
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
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
Bezos absolutely knows about the standard non-compete clause in everyone’s
contract. They sued many people over it.

------
tripzilch
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.

------
honksillet
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
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
_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
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.

------
Pfhreak
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.

------
falcolas
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
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
I wonder if a way around this is to put into the initial contract that there
won't be any additional terms.

~~~
falcolas
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.

------
user_agent
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!

------
SecurityMinded
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
The L-1 visa is portable to a green card though.

~~~
harpratap
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
Yes it’s the employer that sponsors you.

------
cletus
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
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.

~~~
BeetleB
Sorry if what I say sounds harsh, but you remind me of a former colleague who
really beat himself up for not getting admission into the top 2 ranked
schools, and having to settle for the one ranked 3rd in the country. He
thought he was worthless.

The problems with your thought process:

1\. Believing Google/Facebook/Amazon/any company's hiring process to be a
representative of your ability. It is well known that companies like Google
have set up their process to minimize bad hires, and that rejecting qualified
applicants is the side effect of this. If you got rejected, it means nothing.
Look up Type I vs Type II errors in statistics (or Alpha vs Beta testing).

2\. Since when is getting hired into any company a badge of honor? It's not an
accomplishment. Doing/building something that has impact is an accomplishment.
And if you look around, you'll find most SW folks who had an impact are not in
these companies. You'll also find that the average Google/Facebook employee
has not, and never will, achieved much (which, BTW is _totally OK_!)

3\. Similar to 2 above, you'll always be miserable if you allow others to set
standards for you. Set your own standards!

4\. In my opinion, if you're using your career as a major factor in self
worth, you are setting yourself up for all kinds of psychological problems.
The purpose of your job is to get paid. The purpose of acquiring money is to
help you achieve your goals - it's not a goal in itself. If you happen to find
a job that gives you meaning beyond just the paycheck, that's great. But it's
not the norm, and even when you do find one, in most cases it doesn't stay
that way. Things change at work, and that meaningful job could easily become a
meaningless one overnight due to senior management.

Find purpose in life that is not tied to your job.

~~~
lowiqengineer
Even if they aren't representative of ability it's a strong signal if I keep
getting rejected from Facebook (3 times for internship with final interviews,
2 times for onsite) and Google (2 times for internship, 1 time for full time
onsite). You yourself say in a different comment that Amazon is easier to get
into - that just means I'm less intelligent right? I did get into Citadel, but
that was via their JavaScript domain specific interview process that had (as
my friend described it) "mind-numbingly easy questions".

It's easy to say that I shouldn't make getting hired into a company as a badge
of honor...but I truly have no other accomplishments to speak of, even within
Amazon. All of my friends seem to think I'm some sort of disappointment, or at
least not successful.

I wish I could avoid using my career as a factor for my self worth, but I
don't make enough money to achieve my goals and won't for 2 promotions from
now. It really feels like i'm both stuck and limited by my inherited
intelligence.

~~~
BeetleB
Since a lot of this has been about Google vs Amazon, I should add: I respect
Amazon a lot more than Google. Amazon truly is a giant, and in recent years
its successes are a lot more impressive than Google's.

To begin with, Google's main accomplishment is ads. It's their cash cow. For
the most part, Google is a one trick pony. Amazon is much more diversified.

Amazon is way better than Google when it comes to execution. When Amazon steps
into a market, everyone is terrified. They tend to dominate whatever they step
into: warehouses, cloud, ebooks, smart speakers. And now they're trying to get
into retail and shipping. Let's see how that goes.

Presently, there's no reason for me to prefer Netflix over Amazon Prime Video.

They also have owned IMDB since forever, and it's quite cool that they've
allowed it to remain a great resource for movie enthusiasts!

They own Goodreads as well, although I think LibraryThing is better.

I expected Whole Foods to get worse once they bought it, but it doesn't seem
to have, and the culture there just prior to Amazon scooping it up was quite
poor (previous owner became so metric driven that employees were often in
tears and were looking forward to working for Amazon - can't find recent
resources to see how that played out).

Google, on the other hand, has a huge list of endeavors that they completely
dropped the ball on. Lots of canceled products, and the existing ones are
lethargic. Google Nest is not really the best, and most reviews of thermostats
agree, although it perhaps does sell more because of the hype. They're
branching off into smart security cameras, but again are not considered the
best. I think they've given up on smart speakers - I've had their speakers for
2 years, and in those 2 years I haven't noticed any improvements, new
features, etc. In fact, their voice recognition has regressed. I expect Google
will cancel this at some point - I regret filling my house with them.

Google is known to have horrible support for their products. Amazon has its
issues as well, but most will trust Amazon more for support for things like
Cloud than they would Google.

Google's Internet/cell phone plans are horrible. Lots of terrible reviews.

The Chromecast is occasionally useful, but my Roku is much better.

Google got into cable TV via the Internet, but I don't think their offering is
any better than Sling's.

From 2000-2010, Google was very innovative, and produced a lot of stuff of
value. In the last decade, everything has been more or less incremental. I
struggle to think of any way my interaction with Google products (Youtube,
etc) has improved in the last decade. They're fundamentally the same.

~~~
cletus
> To begin with, Google's main accomplishment is ads.

Google's ad business doesn't exist in a vacuum. AdWords is a license to print
money because Google search is so good. Without Google Search, Google's ad
business would be <10% of what it currently is. So how can you argue that's
not an accomplishment?

AdWords is about the only form of online advertising that I personally have no
issue with. You have the intent of the user to find something and they've told
you what they're looking for. As long as an ad is clearly marked as such, I
have no issue with including ads in search results. It may be what the user is
looking for.

> When Amazon steps into a market, everyone is terrified.

Like the other giants, there are things Amazon is good at and things they are
not good at. Prime Video (which you mention) is no Netflix and honestly only
exists because it was bundled with a service actually want (ie Prime free
2-day shipping).

> They also have owned IMDB since forever, and it's quite cool that they've
> allowed it to remain a great resource for movie enthusiasts!

IMDB, for me, has reached the point where I'll prefer Wikipedia if at all
possible. Particularly on mobile, I tend to find it's a horrible experience.
On mobile you have the extra step of "see full cast". Finding TV episode
synopses and cast is always an exercise in "where have they hidden it this
week". I'd say it's stagnated, if anything.

I do respect the Amazon strategy of acquiring leading lead-generating sites
(eg dpreview). That's not typically what Google does. More often than not,
Google is acquiring the talent rather than the tech. It's a different strategy
and not necessarily worse.

> Amazon has its issues as well,

That's an understatement. Amazon has a counterfeit product problem that I'm
honestly shocked hasn't made them the target of some AG investigation yet.
Dodgy sellers buy up product pages for a good product and replace it with
something crappy, keeping all the reviews. Amazon also prefers their own
products in a way that's arguably anticompetitive. Amazon provides logistical
services that i've certainly read some horror stories about (eg look into the
Louqe Ghost S1 US distribution through Amazon).

Amazon's stranglehold on online selling is (IMHO) the best case out of any the
tech giants for anticompetitive behaviour.

~~~
BeetleB
> Google's ad business doesn't exist in a vacuum. AdWords is a license to
> print money because Google search is so good. Without Google Search,
> Google's ad business would be <10% of what it currently is. So how can you
> argue that's not an accomplishment?

I don't disagree with you, but in a sense you are saying what I'm saying, with
just words substituted. Yes, you could view their expertise in ads, or you
could view their expertise in search. Either way: One trick pony.

> AdWords is about the only form of online advertising that I personally have
> no issue with. You have the intent of the user to find something and they've
> told you what they're looking for. As long as an ad is clearly marked as
> such, I have no issue with including ads in search results. It may be what
> the user is looking for.

Yes, but Google is involved in several other dark patterns (tracking users
across sites, etc).

> Prime Video (which you mention) is no Netflix and honestly only exists
> because it was bundled with a service actually want (ie Prime free 2-day
> shipping).

I'm a big Netflix fan, but I noticed yesterday that it has been months since I
watched something on it. I originally signed up for Netflix's streaming to get
access to a lot of _existing_ content (i.e. not produced by Netflix). I
suspect today you'll get a lot more of that with Prime than with Netflix. At
the moment, I'd hesitate to say that Amazon Prime is _clearly_ better than
Netflix, but I'm equally hesitant to say that of Netflix. Were I a new user
with no prior knowledge, it's not at all clear to me that Netflix is better.
It's certainly not apparent to me that Netflix will maintain their lead for
long. And just as you complain about IMDB's redesigns, Netflix's constant
experiments with their UI really annoys me.

(Oh, and just a few days ago "My List" was empty in Netflix - not sure if they
did that intentionally or it was a bug and they fixed it).

(It's amusing you say that people don't really want Prime Video but want 2 day
shipping - it's the opposite with me - but I can see I'm far from the norm).

Yes, IMDB's constant redesigns are annoying, but if you have an account, you
can adjust your settings to make the layout relatively stable. When I look up
a movie, the site looks the same as it did 10-15 years ago. For me, that's a
sign someone in Amazon actually cares.

> That's an understatement. Amazon has a counterfeit product problem that I'm
> honestly shocked hasn't made them the target of some AG investigation yet.
> Dodgy sellers buy up product pages for a good product and replace it with
> something crappy, keeping all the reviews. Amazon also prefers their own
> products in a way that's arguably anticompetitive.

Oh, I hate buying anything from Amazon.com. The web site sucks. The fake
product and fake reviews issues sucks. I now almost always comparison shop and
if the price is not too different I buy from elsewhere. When Amazon touts its
"Customer obsession", it really annoys the heck out of me as the experience
with Amazon.com is so poor for me.

The point is they do dominate that sector, and they really earned that title.
It didn't just happen because they were early or lucky. They work (and
continue to work) aggressively to dominate it.

How many ventures can you list that Amazon went into and completely
floundered? Now do the same exercise with Google. Google often goes into a
market with an "I have a neat idea I want to try out" mentality. Amazon goes
into something with the intention of succeeding big. Their pivot to cloud was
brilliant.

The main reason I don't want to work for them is their poor vesting schedule
and poor paid time off policies.

(Oh, and on the side: Washington Post - it's a crappy newspaper. Not sure why
Jeff was enamored with it).

------
raverbashing
Sounds like another competitive advantage of moving to the valley (not
forgetting the other disadvantages, of course)

------
A4ET8a8uTh0
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.

------
ashtonkem
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.

------
LeanderK
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
There are quite a few of both those things.

~~~
MiroF
Unions in tech? Pray tell.

------
thelazydogsback
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
Depends on the state you live in.

------
LockAndLol
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?

------
BrandoElFollito
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.

------
cycop
Unenforceable , Amazon provides so many services across the internet a judge
would laugh at any non-compete lawsuit against an employee.

~~~
sneak
Are you a trial lawyer with experience in this field, or is this a lay
opinion?

------
caiobegotti
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
Its quite worthwhile.

It easily validates your cv out of a handful of other candidates.

Not like you have to stay there long.

------
einpoklum
Is it even possible to not-compete with Amazon anymore? They're kind of into
everything.

------
justaseattleguy
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.

------
j45
Classy. Will anyone upset by this cancel their prime subscription?

------
wolfi1
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

------
JGM_io
The imbalance of power

------
tinyhouse
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
I read it that way that it was after relocation but before the beginning of
the job in Seattle

~~~
tinyhouse
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.

------
rumanator
The delicious coincidence of Amazon forcing that abusive clause into a
contract with someone whose name translates to "vassal".

------
gdsdfe
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.

~~~
rst
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.

------
founderling
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
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
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
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.)

