
Why I Turned Down an AWS Job Offer - mjulian
https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/why-i-turned-down-an-aws-job-offer-hn/
======
oarabbus_
I interviewed with AWS for an analyst/business intelligence engineer role.

When asked to write a query to get the total GDP by month per country, I wrote
a query along the lines of:

select date_trunc('month',datecolumn) as month, country, sum(GDP) over
(partition by date_trunc('month', datecolumn), country) FROM the_table order
by 1

The interviewer asked me if I was missing something. I said no. "Don't you
need an additional clause if you're doing a sum?"

"No," I responded, "in AWS Redshift (and postgres and mysql 8.0+ and...) if
you do a Sum Window Function a group by is not necessary"

The interviewer made a noise and demeanor changed as if I knew not what I was
talking about. While I can't be 100% sure, I'm almost positive I was failed
for "missing" the group by.

I went home later that day and wrote exactly the same query, which ran
successfully. The AWS BI Intelligence Engineering manager didn't even know how
to use a sum window function. I was a bit frustrated at being failed because
the interviewer didn't know of a (well-known, well-used) feature, but perhaps
I dodged a bullet.

~~~
kmarc
This happens everywhere; The _superstar_ software developer (no) who knows
everything (no) gets to interview you, and sometimes they are simply not
right.

Your story reminds me my ~7th (?) interview with Google where for LRU caching
I mentioned Java's LinkedHashMap; which resulted in he explaining me "what a
ridiculous, memory-wasting data structure would that be!" \- and going on for
a good 5 more minutes bashing my lack of knowledge and me trying coming up
with ad-hoc data structures.

Needless to say, I continuously refused all their recruiters since then.

(For the interested:
[https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/LinkedHa...](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/LinkedHashMap.html),
"This kind of map is well-suited to building LRU caches." \- part of Java for
more than a decade.)

~~~
goostavos
This is pretty much why no one should feel bad if you're rejected after some
FANG interview. It all 100% comes down to the people in your loop. You're
likely to hit an ass hole or two.

I made it into Amazon, but honestly, after sitting in on a bunch of
interviews, I now appreciate the amount of pure dumb luck involved (i.e. I got
a loop of people who liked me and had questions I understood) rather than any
skill (which is, well, pretty limited in reality).

~~~
anon44
Well I appreciate these interview loops because at least they are still far
more objective than big company promo processes when whoever lies the most and
forces others to do their dirty work gets promoted. I do wish the interview
process was even more objective, just administer and extremely difficult IQ
Test instead.

~~~
krageon
IQ tests are rarely objective and they most definitely don't measure the
things most important for a large company.

~~~
anon44
Doesn't have to be a standard IQ test, I would be fine with the test being
about algorithms and systems design type questions. Just please remove the
biased human component from interviews and use a more standardized metric
across a group of people instead of randomly chosen questions for each
candidate with subjective evaluation. The current process is not great even
for people with good tech skill due to the randomness and subjective
evaluation factors.

Also you are wrong about standard IQ tests not being able to measure relevant
skills for tech companies. They not perfect but I bet even those would do a
better job than the current process. The psychometric research is clear that
they are useful for predicting results across a wide variety of domains.

~~~
krageon
> standard IQ tests not being able to measure relevant skills for tech
> companies

I am basing this on what the HR department for the company that I work for
tells me. They have been administering them for years and they have never been
a reliable indicator of company performance. That doesn't mean they're not
used - management loves them.

> The psychometric research is clear

Do you have some sourcing for me? Perhaps I can read up and improve my own
professional experience with new colleagues.

------
neilv
I was leaning strongly towards AWS, after talking with people. I find the
business model very appealing, and it sounded like I'd probably be valued well
there.

Then I did a little due-diligence searching of news articles and such that I
vaguely recalled, about both the blue collar and white collar cultures, and
was very disappointed.

The various stories about non-developer treatment seemed much closer to home
and real, when I imagined working there, and feeling I probably wouldn't be
able to do anything to help them, and might be afraid to even try, unlike at
some places.

I also didn't like the idea of (reportedly) being stack-ranked, and having
everyone's metrics thrown up in a meeting, for a bunch of managers who excel
in Amazon's metrics-driven corporate culture to debate amongst themselves. It
sounded rougher than many other places.

Also, the noncompete. It wasn't in itself a showstopper for me, but it seemed
to send a message of what the overall tone would be.

I'm not doing myself any favors by saying this, but I was actually
disappointed, and maybe our industry will improve if we speak candidly about
some corporate cultural things and values.

~~~
bogomipz
>"I also didn't like the idea of (reportedly) being stack-ranked, and having
everyone's metrics thrown up in a meeting, for a bunch of managers who excel
in Amazon's metrics-driven corporate culture to debate amongst themselves."

I've heard on numerous occasions that the culture at Amazon is toxic but I'm
surprised to hear that they used "stacked ranking" to evaluate employees.
Isn't this kind of a ancient dinosaur corporate idea from GE? I thought this
had fallen out of favor. Can anyone verify?

~~~
neilv
Good question. Looks like they've probably improved:

"Amazon to drop dreaded stack-ranking performance reviews ", 2016-11-14.
[https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-says-
it-...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-says-it-will-
change-performance-reviews-focus-on-staffers-strengths/)

> _The changes, first reported by tech news site GeekWire and set to become
> effective in 2017, make Amazon the latest tech firm to abandon the dreaded
> stack-ranking system._

------
gtsteve
I once met a guy who was a programmer for a hedge fund. The strategies and
knowledge he had would be very useful to competitors. They didn't have a non-
compete agreement in the contract, as this is almost never enforceable here,
instead he agreed to a six month notice period - after working two months'
notice they then paid four months' salary for him to take a holiday while his
knowledge became less and less useful to a competitor. I guess the strategies
these guys use only have a limited shelf life but I don't really know much
about this sort of work.

Perhaps that sounds like overkill but it feels a bit more reasonable and more
fair to the employee - if you want someone to agree to a non-compete then you
should agree to pay them for their time where they can't work.

~~~
mountainofdeath
Can confirm that this is generally how critical financial positions work. They
do have a no-compete but the expectation is that the no-compete is paid for at
the previous wage. It's quite common to get a 6 month severance during the
cooldown period.

~~~
walshemj
Without payment non competes are flat out unenforceable in some legal systems.

------
rectang
> _Come on, AWS. Do better than this._

The advantages are too significant. If a company of sufficient size isn't
doing this, they're doing something else. Statistically, employees cannot win;
there may be outliers where an employee prevails, but in the aggregate, the
company will win — and that makes these draconian policies worthwhile.

Companies enjoy economies of scale when it comes to negotiating employment,
because they hire over and over and over again. Meanwhile, individual employee
candidates must reinvent the wheel with each negotiation.

If you ever end up in court or arbitration, the unfathomable resources that
the company can bring to bear means you're not fighting a fair fight. Our
court system is by and large for the purchase of victories by those who can
afford enough lawyering to exploit every advantage.

The only way to fix this is through government statute to change the labor
market. The way the market has been constructed, employees will forever be on
the losing end.

~~~
sokoloff
A sane company will only employ workers to the extent it’s advantageous for
them.

For that reason, I think it’s wise to go cautiously when making it less
advantageous for companies to hire. Much of that ends up being taken out of
labor rather than companies.

~~~
rectang
Ultimately, there is a balance to be struck. Labor and Capital need each other
even though they have competing interests.

But the proliferation of absurdly exploitative non-compete clauses illustrates
just how far we are from that balance.

~~~
mooreds
Capital seems to need to keep relearning the message that Ford got loud and
clear:

Labor (aka consumers) is what buys output.

~~~
sokoloff
In aggregate yes, of course. It doesn’t have to be _their_ labor though.

I spend about 0.05% of my pre-tax salary at my company. If they gave me a $10K
raise, they would expect to see an extra $5 in revenue per year; hardly
compelling.

~~~
mooreds
Sure, it's a tragedy of the commons. As a company I want to drive my labor
costs down (all input costs, actually). But I want to be able to sell into a
market where enough people have income (up to now typically from selling their
labor) to buy my goods.

The pool of consumers with disposable income is the commons that no one
maintains.

------
dvt
I've also turned down countless Amazon interview offers. In fact, I don't get
how I'm still on their recruitment lists after asking several times to be
removed.

Amazon has arguably the worst culture out of any large tech company, and
generally treats its workers like dirt. Given all my friends that worked for
them, almost all have quit within 5 years. Given their abysmal warehouse
management, it's no surprise they have the second highest employee turnover
out of all Fortune 500 companies[1]. This scummy way of enforcing a "never
enforced" NDA is just Amazon doing Amazon things. I mean, just think about the
stress and money that must go into fighting a multi-billion dollar corporation
in court. Keep away.

[1] [https://www.ibtimes.com/amazoncom-has-second-highest-
employe...](https://www.ibtimes.com/amazoncom-has-second-highest-employee-
turnover-all-fortune-500-companies-1361257)

~~~
scarface74
_Given their abysmal warehouse management, it 's no surprise they have the
second highest employee turnover out of all Fortune 500 companies[1]._

Do you think any of the tech companies would treat their blue collar workers
any better? It just so happens that all of the products produced by Google,
Microsoft and Apple that need a lot of blue collar workers are done by
contractors in a different country. I bet none of them think they are being
treated especially well.

I bet if any of the other companies had to include their outsourced workers,
they would be in the same boat.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _Do you think any of the tech companies would treat their blue collar
> workers any better?_

Okay, but we're talking about what Amazon _is doing now_ , not how other
hypothetical companies may or may not treat potential employees.

~~~
sidr
Here's an example of how another non-hypothetical tech company treats fully
realized (is that the opposite of potential?) blue-collar workers: *
[https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/19/18681845/facebook-
moderat...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/19/18681845/facebook-moderator-
interviews-video-trauma-ptsd-cognizant-tampa) *
[https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-
facebo...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-
content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona)

~~~
pavel_lishin
I'm betting _dvt_ won't work for Facebook, either, and I applaud 'em for it.

(How do we specify that we're referring to a user here, anyway? On reddit, I'd
just type /u/dvt and be done with it, seems weird to do it here.)

~~~
jaf656s
a lot of people like the single quote, e.g. 'pavel_lishin

~~~
Jare
Is that a Lisp thing?

~~~
cmrx64
HN is written in a lisp.

------
abj
> We need this to protect our business.

> It’s never enforced.

If these are true, why would a company with 232.9 billion in revenue be afraid
of paying an employee's salary only when the non compete is enforced?

If the non compete is almost never enforced this agreement would cost the
company under 0.01% of total company wide employee spend. Surely if the
knowledge was that important to the business the company would easily make up
the "extra" salary paid in revenue.

It's strange that a company that large wouldn't agree to pay salary if it's
chosing to enforce the non-compete. It seems like the choice is motivated by
something else than reason. Tradition? Optimizing locally for cost reduction?

~~~
spyspy
Man if I could just work there a month and then quit with 18 months of
guaranteed paid severance...

~~~
abj
That does sound nice. Ideally though the company wouldn't chose to enforce the
non compete because the new employee hadn't picked up any secrets worth
sharing in a month.

Actually, this might incentivise a new employee to hunt for secrets so they
could quit as soon as possible and enjoy their serverance. That might not be
ideal.

~~~
not2b
Even in the absence of non-compete clauses, you're still obliged to keep your
company's trade secrets when you leave, or they can sue you. California
companies sue each other all the time over things like this.

------
AaronFriel
> Non-Competition. During employment and for 18 months after the Separation
> Date, Employee will not, directly or indirectly, whether on Employee’s own
> behalf or on behalf of any other entity (for example, as an employee, agent,
> partner, or consultant), engage in or support the development, manufacture,
> marketing, or sale of any product or service that competes or is intended to
> compete with any product or service sold, offered, or otherwise provided by
> Amazon (or intended to be sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon in
> the future) that Employee worked on or supported, or about which Employee
> obtained or received Confidential Information.

Parse that clause: if a product is sold on Amazon.com and they've obtained
Confidential Information (read: read a slide deck, attended a meeting,
received emails with fine print at the bottom), they can't work for the
company that sells that product or its competitors. Which is, well, I struggle
to imagine what that leaves out.

I couldn't work for AWS, quit my career as a software engineer, and become a
librarian without being hit by this clause.

~~~
Jldevictoria
Do these hold up under Washington state law? I know most states do not support
non-competes when it comes to lawsuits, it wouldn't surprise me if Washington
is one of them.

~~~
kelnos
My understanding is that most states _do_ support non-competes. California is
one of the few (only?) states where non-competes are specifically legally
unenforceable.

------
SteveNuts
Every time I've talked to AWS Recruiters they've belittled by past experience
and just generally made me feel bad about my career. I will never ever work
there, no matter how cool their tech stack must be.

~~~
_q1cj
I can tell you from experience, the internal Amazon stack is not cool or
inventive.

~~~
ryanmarsh
If anything it’s scary. From what I’ve heard software engineering practices at
AWS leave much to be desired.

~~~
algaeontoast
Yep, it's almost as much've a shit-storm as Amazon's internal tools - which
are rife with errors and pushed by Amazonians because "open source is shit"
(verbatim from a lead engineer).

~~~
greyskull
That seems a bit inflammatory. Anecdotally most of the people I've interacted
with especially like open source. My team is increasing our involvement in the
open source projects we use.

A lot of the internal tooling is due to legacy and inertia. There's 20+ years
of history, and so much has been built and continues to be built that it's
enormous investment to steer a different direction. Incremental improvements
have higher reward ratio. But people do want better a better development
experience, especially w.r.t. idiomatic language tooling.

That being said, initiatives are brewing for that "enormous investment".

------
sgnnseven
Same happened to me. A few years back, I got an offer from Amazon after going
through the interview pipeline and the non-compete and outside-of-work IP
assignment were the only thing I asked to be changed since they were draconian
given Amazon's wide breadth of products. They declined to make the change so I
declined to accept their offer.

In general, Amazon doesn't make positive impressions on potential employees by
saying "work for us and we could easily prevent you from working anywhere else
for a year and a half (and please trust us that we won't)".

~~~
ryandrake
This has been my experience with big tech companies as well. Many are willing
to negotiate compensation, a few will negotiate holiday and benefits, but none
of them will touch legal agreements like NDAs, copyright assignment and non-
competes. And if you try the cute “cross off the terms you don’t like and
initial them” trick, you’ll get a stern warning letter from Legal to sign it
unmodified or GTFO.

~~~
blackflame7000
A lot of the hiring people just don't have the authority to contact legal and
request a change to an agreement because the implications of that change must
be reviewed by expensive lawyers.

------
bob1029
At what point does an organization get to be so large such that it is
guaranteed to become a menace to society and individual human dignity?

I cannot come up with any publicly-held multi-billion dollar technology
company today that isn't seemingly run by psychopaths. Is there some new SEC
regulation regarding corporate leadership I am unaware of? Is it an audit item
that requires HR to fuck over all their employees with as much legal nonsense
as possible? I seriously don't understand why there can't be at least one
100bn+ tech company that treats its employees like humans.

I will probably end up working in smaller shops and startups for the rest of
my career judging by the way these megacorps have been conducting themselves.
I used to dream of going to work on the bleeding edge with huge tech companies
like Google and Amazon. Now, I treat their recruitment emails like any other
spam items. I gladly accept my relatively paltry salary knowing that I can
walk away and do whatever I want at any point in time without fear of legal or
financial repercussions.

~~~
jammygit
How do you find the best high paying jobs at smaller shops? Where do you look
to find out about those companies?

~~~
bob1029
That is the difficult part. You probably won't find the high paying jobs up
front. What I had to do was take a modest salary up front and then
revolutionize the business from within before I saw any major payout. This is
how I prefer to do things though. If you are looking for good pay but don't
necessarily want to bust your ass for unknown payout, you are honestly better
off looking at some mega corps and getting what you want up front. The
equation seems to be:

Megacorp:

    
    
      - Large up-front salary and benefits package.
      - More bullshit process just to get an interview and a job.
      - Non-existent-to-modest growth path.
      - Work just enough to get by or as hard as you can stand to, won't matter.
      - Contributions can feel meaningless due to all of the layers of people and process involved.
      - Stable work environment, you feel like your job will always be there.
    

Mom & Pop shop:

    
    
      - Regrettable up-front salary and marginal benefits.
      - Can be hired on the spot, will likely interview with the owners of the business on first or 2nd round.
      - Can work your way onto the board and can have major pull on decisions. 
        Sometimes, you will even become the executive decision maker for an entire project due to the team scale.
      - Must work your ass off on an almost daily basis because you have a small or no team. 
        Conversely, this also means your successes are directly visible to the business owners, 
        as you don't have to fight through middle management, HR and other team members to get to your kudos (money/position).
      - Contributions can feel incredible if you are on a successful project, or at least moving it in that direction.
      - Potentially more unstable work environment. Smaller businesses are much more likely to fail, 
        so this can add to your stress levels significantly.
        Especially, if your project is the only thing keeping the lights on.
    

I found my current role on a StackOverflow careers posting. Nothing special at
first glance, but I've really enjoyed the experience thus far. It really is
what you make of it when you take up a position at a smaller business. I will
never have this amount of impact at a place like
Google/Amazon/Facebook/Microsoft.

------
mAEStro-paNDa
So this has mostly to do with a non-complete clause. The author is pretty
explicit in their view:

> This clause is, to be direct, abusive.

As far as I'm aware this is something that has been apparent for quite some
time, and isn't limited to just Amazon. I can't personally conceive of why
anyone subject to one of these would have any reason to believe that this
isn't just another tool that benefits the company alone, and could perhaps
even be used against you.

A discussion about clauses such as this is well needed in general, not just
the tech industry. Honestly, the real story that perhaps has more relevancy to
tech is having (as the author correctly recognizes) the kind of privilege to
turn down a job with Amazon. I'm no fan of Amazon but that would be something
very difficult to turn down.

~~~
rectang
> _A discussion about clauses such as this is well needed in general_

We can have a discussion, but because money is speech, the voices of
individuals will be drowned out by the voices of corporations.

~~~
cperciva
The world has far more individuals than hundred billion dollar corporations.

~~~
kevin_b_er
And their ability to voice themselves is related to how much money they have.
After all, nearly all forms of mass communication are directly controlled by
said corporations.

~~~
pmiller2
Roughly 5 corporations effectively _are_ nearly all forms of mass
communication.

------
Naac
Amazon is not the only company to sue over this, Microsoft successfully sued
as well[0].

In fact, several large companies have pushed to keep these non-competes in
place in Washington State[1].

I don't think it's fair to focus only on Amazon. The reality is that in
Washington State, this benefits many large corporations ( while being harmful
to employees ) so it is the company's incentive to try and keep the non-
compete as broad and ambiguous as possible.

[0] [https://www.infoworld.com/article/2671108/microsoft-sues-
goo...](https://www.infoworld.com/article/2671108/microsoft-sues-google--
former-employee-over-hiring.html)

[1] [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/)

~~~
drblast
In Washington state non-competes are ubiquitous, and hair-stylists and
estheticians have been sued over them.

That person that waxes people's legs? Works 36 hours a week so the company
doesn't have to call them "full-time" and signs a non-compete that says they
can't leave and work for someone else for a year within a 10 mile radius of
any location of the prior company, which usually means they can't work
anywhere within 50 miles of where they live.

It's criminal how these things are used and they should be banned outright.

~~~
btgeekboy
> In Washington state non-competes are ubiquitous, and hair-stylists and
> estheticians have been sued over them.

They are no longer enforceable for employees earning less than $100k, or
contractors earning under $250k.

------
whycombagator
IIRC salaried workers at Amazon get 10 PTO days. This stops me from even
applying. I wouldn't ever again consider less than 20, and really need a
minumum of 25.

~~~
rovolo
By PTO are you deliberately narrowing to vacation? Full time workers also get
6 days/year Personal Time. The current US vacation schedule also changes over
time, from worse than 10 days to 15 days.

1st year: 5 days, 2nd: 10 days, 3rd: 11 days, 4th: 12 days, 5th: 13 days, 6th:
14 days, 7th+: 15 days.

Thus, the time-off goes from 11 days to 21 days per year.

~~~
tedivm
The max you can hope for is 21 days? That's obscenely low.

------
_bxg1
Even their warehouse workers sign abusive noncompetes. (Edit: they apparently
stopped the practice for hourly workers once it hit the headlines
[https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-removes-non-
compete-c...](https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-removes-non-compete-
clause-for-hourly-workers-2015-3))

Don't work for Amazon. Don't give them money if you can help it.

------
musicale
I'm wary of Amazon since they have a terrible reputation for tech work in
addition to warehouse and delivery work. People who I've talked to who work
there have not entirely refuted this for me.

Non-compete agreements are garbage and are unfortunately very common - I
wouldn't be surprised to find them at Google, Apple, etc.. Employment
contracts are usually "take it or leave it" in that regard, though personally
I try to cross out everything I disagree with before signing one.

I'm surprised it's even legal to require employees to sign an agreement
preventing them from quitting to work for a competitor. It seems like just the
sort of violation of freedom to work, and a harmful restriction of the labor
market, that should be illegal under labor law.

Like all employment agreements, it's also absurdly asymmetrical. Imagine this
"if the company ends your employment for any reason, company agrees not to
compete with you or your next employer in any way - including but not limited
to products, services, and labor - for a period of 18 months subsequent to the
end of your employment." No sane company would agree to this, since they would
effectively have to shut down for 18 months (and lose 18 months of income.)
But they are perfectly OK enforcing such an agreement on their employees.

~~~
cleandreams
They are illegal in California. I have heard it said that has been a pro-
competitive influence for companies here which is one reason for the dynamism
of the tech sector.

~~~
blaser-waffle
I've heard it's the top reason besides the mild weather.

No non-competes mean that companies have to pay you to keep you, otherwise you
walk across the street. This creates the high-pay-for-tech thing that we've
seen for the last few decades.

Well paid tech types can afford to take time off and create startups and pinch
talent in lieu of equity

------
manishsharan
This is worrying on so many levels. How is a person supposed to provide for
their family if a non-compete clause prevens them from taking another job that
can match the salary ?

Doesnt the employer enforcing non compete have to provide a portion of the
salary if the former employee has to work for a reduced salary in different
industry?

Also -- shouldn't the suing company have to show what secret sauce the former
employee could be taking with them ? And if that secret sauce is that
valuable, shouldn't the former employer get a patent on that sauce instead of
suing employees.

------
patientplatypus
AMZN even _recruits_ evilly.

I once got an email from them that was an email blast to 100s of people.

"Congratulations <RECIPIENT>! You have qualified to go to <INSERT CITY FAR
AWAR> for a recruiting mixer where you may then apply for a chance to then be
interviewed."

I want to work for a company where people care about me, at least enough to
email me in person and treat me like a human being.

I think people think that working for a powerful evil company is fine because
at least they are powerful. As if, if you go in with your eyes open and try
and get as much money as fast as possible and get out you'll manage to leave
emotionally and spiritually unscathed.

Who wants to deal with that though? Life is too short to have to live in a
kind of horror show.

~~~
Zimahl
I interviewed with them twice (shame on me after the first debacle).

The first time I interviewed with a DB team - my entire resume up until that
point was heavy UI development. The problem is I didn't know what team it was
with to begin with, I would've declined since it really didn't cover my skills
nor interest.

The second time was with a search team, and by then I was more into middle-
tier development. Interview went well I thought, no red flags. They asked me
to do a coding assignment, I said ok. Here's where things go to shit. The
interviewer told me he'd send me his email so I could send him the code. I did
the assignment but never heard from him about where to send it. Contacted the
recruiter, they said to send it to them and they'd forward it on. I got the
hint, the interviewer literally did it to waste my time. What an ass.

Anyways, I learned my lesson. First, fuck Amazon, their recruiting emails go
straight to the trash. Second, no coding assignments ever. I'll do stuff on
site if you want but I've never gotten a good result out of coding
assignments, and now I'm too experienced to see anything that would be
appropriate.

------
ghobs91
Based on what I'm seeing in this comment section, I'll be doing as much of my
online shopping with Costco as possible. They have just as much, if not more
of an emphasis on customer service, and they actually treat their employees
very well.

------
timtaco
I've turned down 2 different amazon offers, in both cases they lowballed and
then dragged negotiations trying to get what they wanted. I thought they acted
in bad faith and thought it wouldn't be a good fit, later confirmed by many
many friends who work there

------
mruts
Amazon pay is shit. I was laughed out of the room for asking for a salary that
some analysts make in finance.

People get paid so much more in finance than any other industry that I wonder
why tech people aren’t more interested in those jobs.

Also the work is more exciting and challenging. And it’s better for the world,
though I suspect I’ll get a lot of downvotes for that one.

~~~
jedberg
I once got offered a job in finance that was double my _Netflix_ salary. I
didn't take it because:

1) I'd have to live in NYC

2) I'd have to use their super locked down Windows machine.

3) I would only be allowed to talk to people in my department, and would never
even be allowed to associate with the people making the trading algorithms,
even though the job was to build them an infrastructure for back-testing their
algorithms.

4) Their company had the opposite of transparency -- everything was so locked
down it would be nearly impossible to be successful at the job, which was by
it's nature very cross-sectional.

At some point the money just doesn't matter that much anymore. Once you have
enough to cover all your needs and few wants a year, more money has a quickly
diminishing return.

Other than the vast amounts of money, I didn't see anything interesting about
working finance.

~~~
twic
Not every financial firm is that paranoid. Many are, though - i got offered a
job in London that your description would fit perfectly! Still, i ended up
working at a firm that's the polar opposite of that.

I'll also disagree with you about money. Once you have enough to cover all
your needs and few wants a year, more money _starts to get interesting_ ,
because then it goes directly into building financial independence. That's the
money that will pay for you to retire, start a business of your own, take a
sabattical, move to a low-paid job you love, etc.

~~~
jedberg
> Once you have enough to cover all your needs and few wants a year, more
> money starts to get interesting, because then it goes directly into building
> financial independence.

I agree with you in theory, but even if you made $200,000 more a year than you
need, how many years will you have to work at a crappy high paying job to save
up enough to do any of those things?

The only way to build that kind of wealth is either getting lucky on some
stock options, being rich to start, or being young enough where $100,000 will
carry you for a couple of years.

~~~
twic
If you can invest with a return of 3% above inflation, 200k/yr buys you
6k/yr/yr of income, so five years would buy you 30k/yr. I lived on roughly
that when i was a graduate student.

In any case, i'm not suggesting you take a crappy job to get that money - my
first point was that there are quite enjoyable jobs which will provide it!

------
jjtheblunt
I interviewed for a software role in Amazon Business, had spent several years
with a quite high engineering rank in Apple, and was warned by the hiring
manager that the roles to be filled considered the people as, and i quote,
"fungible" assets.

Pretty much the most damning confession the hiring committee could have
admitted to, and I imagined a good-hearted warning. I semi balked at that, and
feedback from the recruiter was that I'd been brilliant, but might not like
the culture. The recruiter sounded truly annoyed. I found that experience
"interesting".

------
radicalbyte
I've been approached a few times by Amazon recruiters, I reply back with my
salary and profit share demands and that usually shuts them up.

I guess that they must have some luck picking up junior developers from
Europe, or maybe people who like the idea of living in the US or Canada for a
few years so are willing to take the cut.

~~~
kiliantics
I've heard many stories of people taking Amazon jobs till their H1B
application goes through and then jumping ship. Amazon seems to be well aware
of this trend, however, and they make sure to squeeze a lot of work out of
these people, holding the sponsorship over their heads.

~~~
hinkley
And I've heard from amazon employees that the options vesting period is
weighted toward your second and third year, and few people get enough options
to keep their income up (or at least going up) after that. So a lot of people
tough out their third year and then walk away from the rest. There's only so
much cumulative bullshit people are willing to take and if your
income/bullshit ratio is going down, you won't last long.

------
blairanderson
I would bet money that Amazon has an internal LLC/P&L for this type of non-
competes and litigation.

I can see it now: _We implemented automatic non-compete lawsuits and income
and increased 3x/month-over-month._

~~~
imhoguy
Non-compete as a Service! Wait for the AWS product code name and API soon /s

~~~
mi100hael
AWS RageMaker

------
sergiotapia
Very eye opening, thank you. I had no idea Amazon treated their employees this
way.

I turned down two amazon interviews because I asked them if they still did the
whole whiteboard-leetcode-type interviews, and they did so I passed.

------
algaeontoast
Working for amazon is like joining a fascist cult - you made the right
decision.

Source - worked for a startup that was acquired by Amazon. My team was slowly
managed out of the company and replaced by teams in Seattle. Most of my team
was let go by PIP, essentially claiming we weren't "performing at a high
enough standard" since they weren't willing to reprehend my boss for being
incompetent.

However, I'm proud of the fact that in my exit interview my incompetent boss
tried to have me give a "reason for my willful exit" to which I responded
"oranges". I mostly did this because there was an Amazon HR person on Chime
(internal Amazon Skype) during the meeting recording a transcript of the
meeting. So at some point, my boss had to explain to her boss why she fired
someone and explain why my reason was "oranges".

TLDR: Amazon is cheap, doesn't care about workers and is kind of horrible.

~~~
mirceal
exit interview advice (applies everywhere): politely decline the exit
interview. there is zero upside to doing an exit interview

~~~
dickeytk
Call me a naïf, but I think exit interviews are a great way to speak candidly
to skip-level managers about dissatisfactions you have—with the aim of making
the company you’re leaving potentially a bit better for your colleagues.

EDIT: I think “feedback” here is somewhat vague. You guys are talking about
issues there would be no point in raising. For me this is not systemic issues.

I would bring up more minor things, “I think Chris would be better suited to
work on XYZ project”, “The company work parties make me a bit uncomfortable
with the amount of alcohol.” “I know Jane wants to be a manager but I’m not
sure she’d be so great at it.”

I think these fall into the realm where I wouldn’t bring it up before the exit
interview, but they might provide some benefit that skip levels would be able
to provide.

~~~
EpicEng
In my experience, the problem with your thinking is that it doesn't play out
that way.

If management is open to criticism and will actually use that feedback to make
changes, you probably realize that fact and have already been giving candid
feedback.

If they're not open to it, then your openness is just going to burn a bridge.
It feels good, and you may not care in the moment, but at beat it's neutral.
At worst it hurts you down the road.

~~~
algaeontoast
I've experienced this indirectly, I was young and naive and figured it'd be
best to be honest with why I left a prior startup I was working for, citing
issue with my boss' management.

Turns out people in that startup knew my boss, didn't get the interview and
was blacklisted from my prior boss even though we were on good terms.

Learned that lesson the hard way.

------
sylens
This is a good post about something that doesn't get talked about a lot. NDAs
and confidentiality agreements should be able to cover the concerns of loss of
intellectual property.

------
ohaideredevs
The only thing that scares me is the IP factor if I work on stuff after work.

From what I am hearing, if I am not in Cali, I am at risk even if I don't use
company time/equipment?

Amazon pretty much doubles salaries in areas outside of California, so it's
extremely appealing money-wise if you stick around for the vest.

~~~
C1sc0cat
Why its a given for professional tech jobs in the UK.

~~~
ohaideredevs
That's really depressing. Genuinely. If a candidate made a platform of
protecting worker IP (created on their own time), I would vote for that
candidate based on that alone.

~~~
walshemj
You would have to completely rewrite employment law - there are better
achievable things to work for (banning abusive non competes, an all non
competes for all workers paid under 75% of the median salary) and I say that
as an Activist.

------
ausjke
I know about 10 colleagues that are working at Amazon right now.

Yes nobody was excited about what they're doing, but I rarely heard about
others who are truly exciting on daily jobs, so nothing unusual.

They all seem a little more busy indeed, but their salary plus bonus is at
least 2x comparing to previous job so I think they're fine with a little added
workload.

Money talks for many, it is just yet another high-tech big company, and it
paid really well comparing to other mid-small-companies especially, that's
enough for most people, what else are you asking for then?

If I can get hired with double salary and a little more work, I will lower my
sensitivity to the soft-skills and culture bullshit and just go to work and
get paid, then I enjoy my life elsewhere.

------
coding123
They are going after an executive for non-compete. They'll lose the case
because they probably didn't go after hundreds of other employees that went
into competing roles. A selective lawsuit like that will definitely fail - it
will look vindictive.

------
daenz
How does refusing to sign a non-compete clause typically play out? I imagine
it goes back and forth, and I'm trying to imagine a tactful way to do it that
doesn't burn the relationship.

~~~
toomuchtodo
It depends on the value you can deliver. If you are valuable enough, a
negotiation takes place. If you're a cog, the job offer will be rescinded.
Never give notice at your current gig until you've seen everything you'll be
required to sign at your new gig.

~~~
bitexploder
I don’t think it burns the bridge. It is acceptable to have a moral and
ethical objection to NDAs if you are just a staff IT worker.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I agree entirely. I have (politely) rejected several AWS recruiter inquiries
because of Amazon business practices.

------
Seb-C
Last year I was contacted on Linkedin by a headhunter at AWS for an
opportunity in Ireland as a senior lead dev. At this time I was working hard
toward a different destination, so it didn't exactly match my plans, but the
"wow" effect of an opportunity in Amazon made me accept to "have a chat" with
him, because I thought it was worth seeing if on the long term they could help
me to reach my destination.

After I accepted, the recruiter asked me a CV. I gave it to him even thought
my LinkedIn profile is far more detailed and qualitative than any CV. Then I
received an email for a technical automated test, which was ridiculously easy.
Two weeks later, when I received an automatic email saying that I reached the
first "candidate interview" step, I politely declined and explained why.

Copy/pasting my CV in a standard recruitment process and being handled like I
had applied for the job by myself is not my definition of "having a chat" not
of headhunting...

I already wasted the 4 first years of my career in a political and corporate
"big company", thank you very much. I thought the ones like AWS may be
different, but in the end it is seems to be the same corporate bullshit than
in any big-sized company. I feel better working in human and really innovative
startups with real entrepreneurs.

------
kiliantics
There are many reasons to reject Amazon and other companies and prefer to use
your labour towards more ethical efforts. The DSA tech action working group
and the Tech Workers Coalition are compiling "rejection letter" templates for
companies that have committed particularly egregious misdeeds here:

[https://github.com/nycdsa/tech-rejection-
letters](https://github.com/nycdsa/tech-rejection-letters)

------
stcredzero
_some random sales schmoo_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo)

------
farah7
This is one of the benefits of not having a linkedin profile.
Recruiters/former managers cannot see where you're heading next. Obviously
this is different for high profile execs but my gut feeling is that most
individual recruiters could be shielded from non compete enforcement if they
don't publicize their employment on the internet.

------
keypusher
I don’t see anything in this article about Amazon offering the author a job,
so I’m a bit confused by the headline. Were they offered a position at Amazon
the same week as this non-compete dispute became public and forgot to mention
it?

~~~
Zimahl
The author was offered a position at an earlier time and refused because of
the non-compete. The subsections with the quote titles are excuses given to
the author by Amazon when he said he complained about the policy.

------
Fission

      If someone signs an agreement to this effect, 
      what possible job could they take after leaving 
      Amazon that wouldn’t potentially run afoul of this 
      clause? I’d have said “writing a newsletter making 
      fun of AWS,” but—lo and behold—they’re already in 
      the business of making fun of themselves by 
      launching services with names like Systems Manager 
      Session Manager. 
    

I wouldn't be surprised if they've automated out an RNN system to generate
names

------
burtonator
Wait. Amazon's anti-union rhetoric said they want rapid innovation and want to
focus on customers!

Are you to tell me that Amazon 'associates' might actually benefit from
unionizing?

------
m0zg
Could someone from AMZN confirm that 18 months is the common duration of their
non-compete? This is upping the ante considerably even compared to the already
abusive terms by Google/FB/MSFT in WA (1 year, never seen it enforced). Unless
offered truly staggering compensation, I wouldn't even consider a job which
upon termination requires me to not work anywhere for a year and a half.

~~~
DVassallo
I posted my full Amazon contract in this thread, with highlights on the key
parts. I was an SDE-3 (Level 6), hired in Dublin, and then moved to Seattle
after 2 years:
[https://twitter.com/dvassallo/status/1157698145632976896](https://twitter.com/dvassallo/status/1157698145632976896)

AFAIK, software engineers don't get the 18-month non-compete clause that
triggered the cited lawsuit. There's a less harsh clause of 18-months that
prohibits working with Amazon customers and vendors. And, there's also a
12-month period where you can't work with any ex-employee who worked at Amazon
in the past 12 years. More details in the thread.

~~~
m0zg
So basically anyone who moved from AMZN to GOOG, MSFT or FB or another large
Seattle employer is breaking that last clause and can be sued by AMZN? That's
nuts. Those companies have quite a number of ex-AMZN people.

------
arenaninja
I should like to turn down an offer from AWS but first they'll need to extend
one.

But I agree that Amazon's recruiting is hot garbage, they even spam your inbox
with surveys requesting feedback while they already ghosted you in the
interview process because they have decided to not continue!

------
JSavageReal
Blows my mind that non-compete clauses in these trivial instances are legal
and actually enforced. Let's not forget that humans created these laws, and
humans can change them.

------
augustarian
AWS is really not the same as Amazon Retail. The culture, leadership and
practices are really really different!

~~~
tedivm
If anything that makes it worse.

------
C1sc0cat
OP Seems to be confusing trade secrets and noncompete

~~~
QuinnyPig
Author here. To be clear, the stated reasons Amazon gave for enforcing the
non-compete in their filed lawsuit are already covered under trade secret
protections. I'm not the one who's conflating the two. :-)

~~~
C1sc0cat
Ah I see sounds like they where grasping at straws or relaying on compliant
judges.

I know on case in the UK where a company (imarsat) tried this American style
shit at tribunal - didn't go well.

------
sokoloff
> Note that it’s scoped to Amazon—not just AWS.

Well, it’s also scoped to products that the employee worked on or received
Confidential Information about. Not just all of Amazon, full stop. IMO, that’s
far more reasonable.

Work only on AWS and get no Confidential Info about other aspects of Amazon
and it’s scoped to just AWS for you.

~~~
rootusrootus
"or supported", which can be construed very broadly.

------
gigatexal
This is the ultimate humble brag. To work at the leading cloud operation would
be an honor.

~~~
pnw_hazor
Working at orgs like Amazon, FB, or Google, show poor character and/or low
self-esteem.

~~~
gigatexal
Do you live your whole life by making blanket statements for everything?

~~~
pnw_hazor
Just my opinion man. But I have heard those companies pay well.

