Amazon Requires Non-Compete Agreements.. For Warehouse Workers

Rick Zeman writes: Amazon, perhaps historically only second to Newegg in the IT nerdling's online shopping heart, has not only subjected their warehouse employees to appalling working conditions, but they're also making them sign a non-compete agreement for the privilege. Here's an excerpt from the agreement: "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)."

Comments

Good Luck

[OverlordQ]

That's a pretty broad exclusion to be enforceable.

Re:Good Luck

[rogoshen1]

that's really fucking ballsy. good work bezos.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably isn't enforceable in some states (ie: California).

Re:Good Luck

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

That's a pretty broad exclusion to be enforceable.

Convenient that warehouse workers tend to have excellent lawyers and be in a strong position to handle the time and trouble of contesting legal matters, isn't it?

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon has plenty of money to make trying to fight the non-compete be more than is financially possible for many of its employees. All hail corporations!

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

I just refer to him as Jeff Cunt. Not clever, but accurate.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a pretty broad exclusion to be enforceable.

But was warehouse worker has the money to fight it in court?

Really s**ty thing for Amazon to do.

Re:Good Luck

[ralphsiegler]

Just one lawyer needs to see the "class action" possibilities; those won't cost the workers

Re:Good Luck

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yeah and that class action will cost Amazon a fraction of a percent of their yearly revenue while at the same time having scared plenty of their workers from trying to leave and work for anyone else for years while the court battle drags on.

Re:Good Luck

[mr_mischief]

See the part that says "any product or service". That's entirely too broad. Have you seen the breadth of things Amazon sells? This could probably only be enforced if someone was taking proprietary information about how Amazon does things and improves the processes at a competitor.

Re:Good Luck

[Lunix Nutcase]

But to contest the non-compete you'll have to go to court and fight against Amazon's billions of dollars in financial resources. Even if you win, it'll be long and costly.

Re:Good Luck

[ralphsiegler]

depends how hard the court hits them; since they do business everywhere a venue where they are hated would be choice location

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

In california, they are a waste of paper unless you are SELLING YOUR BUSINESS. I bet they were afraid of corporate espionage on their warehouse innovations.

Re:Good Luck

[DaHat]

Contesting it in court assumes it becomes an issue.

Far easier to simply ignore it, not reveal it to a future employer and assume Amazon never finds out that a someone in the bowels of their company ended up in the bowels of another company.

Re:Good Luck

[Lunix Nutcase]

Unless the court is going to slap them with a $40+ billion fine, Amazon will have reaped in magnitudes more in revenue from these workers than they will pay out in a fine.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeff Bozo?

Re:Good Luck

[bondsbw]

Non-compete agreements should work both ways. If I can't work for a competitor, then you can't replace me with another employee.

Re:Good Luck

[orasio]

In any case, you would need Amazon to actually enforce it.
While they do have more money for legal fees, they would risk a big PR issue if they tried to prevent some guy from working at Walmart after quitting Amazon. Also, the first guy with such a problem wouldn't have a lot of trouble finding someone to help them with legal fees, if only for the publicity.

This is probably just a scare tactic, to discourage people from leaving them, it is unethical, but not really enforceable.

Re:Good Luck

[Lunix Nutcase]

This is probably just a scare tactic, to discourage people from leaving them, it is unethical, but not really enforceable.

It undoubtably is. Most non-competes are only used for this purpose. The problem is that the worker will never know when their company will choose to enforce it.

Re:Good Luck

[Applehu Akbar]

But every Amazon warehouse employee will get am Amazon gift certificate for $25.

Re:Good Luck

[TWX]

Yep. Last time I checked non-competes were not really allowed in my state either, and my guess is that an attempt at enforcing one against a lowly hourly laborer would be laughed out of court.

Re:Good Luck

[Lunix Nutcase]

Signed contracts are deemed unenforceable all the time. It's called an illegal agreement and there is hundreds of years of common law precedent around it. You're an idiot.

Re:Good Luck

[Lunix Nutcase]

Last time I checked non-competes were not really allowed in my state either, and my guess is that an attempt at enforcing one against a lowly hourly laborer would be laughed out of court.

Maybe in your state. But there are plenty of US states where the issue isn't so cut-and-dry. And there is plenty of pro-employer case law precedent that can be brought to bear.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't even try to enforce it. I know first hand.

Re:Good Luck

[TWX]

There are lots of clauses placed into contracts that are not legally binding under current law. Some of those clauses are put in because the parties drafting the contract aren't necessarily aware that they're not legal, and other clauses are there so that if the law is changed, the clause might be able to come into effect.

An example, in my state, a real estate lender cannot seek compensation from the mortgagee-seller if a short-sale does not bring as much revenue as the mortgagee owes. Despite this, most short-sale contracts state that the bank may go after the seller for the seven years that debts may be collected in. Other states do not have laws preventing this, so if the seller moves out-of-state the bank might try to enforce against them, or if the laws in the state change then the bank may attempt to enforce.

As for the nature of illegal conditions in a contract, that's why contracts usually have clauses in them that state that if any part of the contract is deemed unenforceable, the rest of the contract remains in-effect.

Re:Good Luck

[ShanghaiBill]

Just one lawyer needs to see the "class action" possibilities; those won't cost the workers

Yup. All the lawyer has to do is find all zero of the warehouse workers that were actually sued or damaged in any way.

I realize that we are all supposed to be outraged, and equate this to the blood of the workers being used to lubricate the machinery of capitalism. But this is just some standard legal boilerplate, that nobody noticed before, because it has no actual real world consequences.

 

Re:Good Luck

[Registered Coward v2]

Signed contracts are deemed unenforceable all the time. It's called an illegal agreement and there is hundreds of years of common law precedent around it. You're an idiot.

Exactly. When I left a job I had my lawyer review the non-compete. His response: "Ignore it. It's unenforceable and the chances of them trying to stop you in court are nil." He said that the law is constantly changing and what is enforceable today may not be tomorrow, and unless you are senior enough or worked on a very sensitive area it's not worth the trouble to sue you; and if you were in those situations you should have a very specific non-compete, with compensation for the time you can't compete to ensure it is enforceable. The general rule is if they try to prevent you from working in an area where you have experience it will be unenforceable unless they pay you to not compete and even then it has to be for a reasonable period. Of course, IANAL and YMMV depending on jurisdiction. HAND

Re:Good Luck

[Lunix Nutcase]

As for the nature of illegal conditions in a contract, that's why contracts usually have clauses in them that state that if any part of the contract is deemed unenforceable, the rest of the contract remains in-effect.

Which itself is not always a legal condition. There are plenty of instances were the entire contract is thrown out due to the presence of illegal clauses.

Re:Good Luck

[rogoshen1]

how many minimum wage workers need to be completely fucked over while establishing the 'class'?

Re:Good Luck

[DaHat]

That still assumes the violation is noticed and acted upon.

Seriously, how likely do you think it will be for a former employer to keep track of their ex-employees so closely that this would be a serious issue?

Re:Good Luck

[Firethorn]

Remember this isn't a criminal offense. Most warehouse workers are 'judgement proof', in that they don't have the assets to pay anything. The court isn't going to say 'you have to quit your job' because it has financial interest in NOT paying for their welfware because they can't work at what they're skilled at due to the non-compete.

Amazon would pay more than they could recover pretty much every day the court trial went on. Also, there might actually be enough push-back if they tried to change laws.

Personally, I'd like to see a law of 'sure, write up whatever non-competes you want. However, it means that the the employee is still your employee during the non-compete period. Which means you still have to pay them their salary and benefits'. Don't want them working for the competitor for 12 months? You gotta pay them to sit on their ass for 12 months.

Finally, it sounds like they stuck the non-compete into their boilerplate employment documents. It's not intentionally targeting warehouse people, though I suppose that with the increasing amounts of robotics in them, it might be deliberate, so said workers don't go describing how the robots work.

Re:Good Luck

[Lunix Nutcase]

That still assumes the violation is noticed and acted upon.

Sure, but most people are risk averse. They aren't going to tempt being sued.

Seriously, how likely do you think it will be for a former employer to keep track of their ex-employees so closely that this would be a serious issue?

Probably not likely as it is mostly a scare tactic. But to claim that none of the workers are going to be influenced by its presence in their employment contract is silly.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

You and I know the way business works in the United States is the business gets the benefits and the workers get the costs.

Re:Good Luck

[alva_edison]

Yeah and that class action will cost Amazon a fraction of a percent of their yearly revenue while at the same time having scared plenty of their workers from trying to leave and work for anyone else for years while the court battle drags on.

If a contract has something like this in it, I'm guessing there's also language that mandates arbitration (vs lawsuit) and forbids class actions.
I can't play a modern video game from a major publisher without a clause that mandates arbitration.

Re:Good Luck

[Lunix Nutcase]

Remember this isn't a criminal offense.

No one said it was.

Amazon would pay more than they could recover pretty much every day the court trial went on. Also, there might actually be enough push-back if they tried to change laws.

So what? Corporations spend tons of money dragging on court cases to attempt to bleed dry the people suing them. Insurance companies are notorious for it. Plus, Amazon has billions in money they can bring to bear.

it might be deliberate, so said workers don't go describing how the robots work.

Then they would only have them sign a non-disclosure agreement, which is not the same as a non-compete, if that were really the motive.

Re:Good Luck

[TWX]

This is true, but it's also not universally a given either.

Re:Good Luck

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yup. All the lawyer has to do is find all zero of the warehouse workers that were actually sued or damaged in any way.

Yeah and like in most cases Amazon would pay out what amounts to 10s of dollars per person while having raked in billions in revenue. It'd be a slap on the wrist at best.

Re:Good Luck

[amicusNYCL]

at the same time having scared plenty of their workers from trying to leave and work for anyone else

Exactly the kind of work environment that any company tries to foster. Nothing says "productivity" and "efficiency" like "scared".

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and that class action will cost Amazon a fraction of a percent of their yearly revenue while at the same time having scared plenty of their workers from trying to leave and work for anyone else for years while the court battle drags on.

Indeed. Why doesn't amazon just get it over with and put a clause like this in their employee contract: "By signing this contract employee agrees that the company (amazon.com) has taken ownership of said employee until such date as employee retires." I mean, if amazon is going to treat their warehouse workers as indentured servants they might as well get it in writing.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize that we are all supposed to be outraged, and equate this to the blood of the workers being used to lubricate the machinery of capitalism. But this is just some standard legal boilerplate, that nobody noticed before, because it has no actual real world consequences.

I dunno about that. Considering that many people switch jobs just so that they can move up the pay scale, I would say that threat of being sued for taking a job at a competitor is a pretty solid "real world consequence".

Re:Good Luck

[ralphsiegler]

actually a couple hundred million would be enough to make them seriously consider change their ways. But just a few million they'd laugh off.

Re:Good Luck

[Holi]

You really think Amazon wants to take the PR hit by suing a contractor who worked in their warehouse for 10 dollars an hour?

Re:Good Luck

[Darinbob]

No, that name is insulting to real clowns.

Re:Good Luck

[Darinbob]

But still plenty of states who are in the pockets of corrupt politicians who will claim such things are pro-business.

Re:Good Luck

[ShanghaiBill]

Yeah and like in most cases Amazon would pay out what amounts to 10s of dollars per person while having raked in billions in revenue.

More likely they would pay out $0 to all zero of the plaintiffs that actually have a case.

It'd be a slap on the wrist at best.

Even a "slap on the wrist" would be excessive, since there isn't any evidence that they have done anything wrong. It is not a crime to be big, and nobody should be fined just because they can afford it.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Better then getting an Apple app store credit for five dollars.

http://9to5mac.com/2013/06/23/apple-notifies-itunes-users-of-in-app-purchase-settlement-details-5-to-those-inappropriately-charged-under-30/

Re:Good Luck

[idontgno]

Of course not.

They'll sue their ex-employee's new employer, assuming it's strategically worth it to bully them into something. (Coerce them out of a market, or into a partnership, etc.)

It's an arrow in a quiver. It's not fired unless there's a good target.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah; let's bring back the "reserve clause".

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically they're saying "If we fire you, you can't work for 18 months".
No court outside Texas is going to agree with that.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Could a competing employer get sued for hiring someone covered by a non-compete? That would be a much better target for Amazon, especially if that competitor hired multiple people. Employers could quickly get in the habit of filtering out candidates who worked at Amazon recently or at all just to avoid the chance of it.

Re:Good Luck

[swb]

My guess is that it's only a serious issue for people with specific IP knowledge, like higher-end people in pharma, chemicals, semiconductors, some kinds of software -- the kinds of skills with very limited places to use them, most with direct competitors.

For other jobs, like mostly generic IT work, I just can't see my boss bothering to spend the money to figure out where I might have moved to, provided I keep a low-ish profile about it.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen the breadth of things Amazon sells?

Does it include chutzpah? They seem to have an ample supply..

*Whatever the market will bear*

Re:Good Luck

[ShanghaiBill]

I would say that threat of being sued ...

Except Amazon hasn't actually threatened anyone. No rational person would believe, in light of complete absence of evidence to the contrary, that the intent of this clause is to prevent someone from working as a cashier at Walmart. Preemptively suing Amazon because there is an infinitesimal chance that they might sue you, is not going to get very far. The judge should throw the case out and order you to reimburse Amazon for their legal expense. We have enough frivolous nonsense in our courts.

Re:Good Luck

[sumdumass]

It's not really the ex-employer keeping track that you have to worry about. Almost all prospective employers will call for a reference and then they know you are looking into a banned job. But the most troublesome for you would be friends and people you used to work with running into you on the street or something and you letting it slip that you are working somewhere specific. They then either out of amazement or stupidity, end up telling someone else at work and eventually it become common enough knowledge that the management hears about it.

It's happened to me before. I've wondered out loud about how some former coworker was doing and someone ends up telling me "just fine, they are working at XYZ now" not realizing they should have used a bit more discretion. Before I knew it, I was in the office being grilled by the boss and almost lost my job by telling them I was talking about someone from school not work when they heard the entire conversation. Thankfully, it turns out in my situation that the former employee already cleared the job with higher up management so the only one in any trouble was me. I soon found another job.

Re:Good Luck

[jdavidb]

You really think Amazon wants to take the PR hit by suing a contractor who worked in their warehouse for 10 dollars an hour?

Great, then they should have no problem removing the portion of the agreement that would give them the right to do so.

http://blog.plover.com/law/contracts.html

Re:Good Luck

[ShanghaiBill]

how many minimum wage workers need to be completely fucked over while establishing the 'class'?

Technically, you would need at least two. So far, the count is zero.

Re:Good Luck

[TWX]

I doubt it. There is no legal agreement between the new employer and Amazon in this context.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much what happened to me when I started employment at an Australian subsidiary of a US company. They just cut-n-paste a lot of no-compete bullshit into the contract, which was surprisingly aggressive - even attempting to cover stuff I worked on in my own time that was completely unrelated. I couldn't work in a similar field for 18 months. A friend of mine who worked in workplace and contract law basically laughed at it, and said it wasn't worth the paper is was printed on under Australian law.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-compete agreements should work both ways. If I can't work for a competitor, then you can't replace me with another employee.

For the three non-competes I was requested to sign, I modified them to state I must be paid normal salary rates at the time of my last raise, excluding any pay reductions for any reasons, for the entire time I am to comply, up to the non-compete max term they stated but terminable by the employer at any time.
I then ask them to reprint the contract for us both to sign.

If they want me to not work in my field for 18 months, I must be paid for those 18 months.
If they do so for say 12 months and decide they don't want to pay me anymore, I will be back to work the 13th month.
If they won't pay at all, I won't non-compete at all.

This also prevents them lowering my salary to minimum wage the day before terminating me just to get out of their payments. Only raises change the end amount.

Two of the three companies agreed, and upon my leaving neither wanted to enforce it.
The third company didn't want to agree but then hired me with NO non-compete at all.

Thankfully my current workplace never presented me with or required one.

Re:Good Luck

[jafiwam]

In any case, you would need Amazon to actually enforce it. While they do have more money for legal fees, they would risk a big PR issue if they tried to prevent some guy from working at Walmart after quitting Amazon. Also, the first guy with such a problem wouldn't have a lot of trouble finding someone to help them with legal fees, if only for the publicity.

This is probably just a scare tactic, to discourage people from leaving them, it is unethical, but not really enforceable.

More likely, it's a case of megalomania of some middle manager somewhere. Some guy read the article about Facebook "stealing" methods for data centers and thinks the stuff "they invented" in the company is intellectual property worth billions and tries to "protect his ideas."

The non-competes I have experience with were always some big ego douchebag somewhere, not a real business need. It might be different in some industries, but random software consulting companies just don't need it. Yeah, you can be protective of client lists and such, but how to go about the job?

Re:Good Luck

[sumdumass]

While I'm sure this is something to be considered, I'm not sure it is entirely possible. Some states will have restrictions on what can actually be covered by a non compete agreement. In Washington state for instance, a non compete is limited to customer information and contacts and something called good will (however that is defined) and limited to what is reasonably necessary.

This is kind of confusing as each state seems to be different to some respect. Some states also have a red line policy where if something is overly broad or not within the law, the entire agreement is tossed out while others will use a blue line approach and only strike out what is in conflict to make the NCA enforceable. Yet there is another process called reformation in which the courts would actually rework the Non-compete in order to make it enforceable
(eg, striking out the entire state as overly broad and inserting a metropolitan area or radius of distance from the locations of the employer they determine to be reasonably enforceable)

Here is a little more about how it varies in different states

And of course, here is the PDF which charts it

http://www.beckreedriden.com/w...

I suspect they have no intention of ever enforcing this non compete. I think it is to scare the workers into not leaving for greener pastures, or better pay/benefits/work conditions.

Re:Good Luck

[LifesABeach]

bezos can blow it out her "fullfillment" center. I cannot help but wonder if certain patents are about ready to expire?

Re:Good Luck

[ancientt]

Except Amazon hasn't actually threatened anyone.

Yes. Yes they did. That's exactly what a non-compete contract is: a threat.

Re:Good Luck

[tnk1]

Fair enough, but a warehouse worker isn't going to easily find a job in a place where they store something that Amazon doesn't sell. They aren't going to have a lot of choice but to ignore the non-compete or go on welfare or something.

I don't see why you would put a non-compete on a warehouse worker and expect to justify that as protecting your trade secrets.

Re:Good Luck

[mjwalshe]

That's is a trade secrets law

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

DoXIT FORXXX
XXXXX HERX
XXXXXXX

Re:Good Luck

[bbn]

Here we have a very effective law that put a complete stop to the non-compete bullshit: any company that wants a non-compete contract will have to pay half salary for the entire period where said non-compete contract is valid.

So if you stop working somewhere, they have to keep paying you half salary, if they really think that non-compete contract is necessary. They almost never do.

Re:Good Luck

[edjs]

In theory, yes. If they are in a jurisdiction that allows non-competes, and the new employer knowingly induces the employee to break the non-compete terms, then Amazon could claim tortious interference. But hard to see them using that against low-level workers - they are easy to replace, and the courts will probably deem the non-compete unconscionable. If Amazon fights, and loses, that may reduce their ability to threaten higher-level employees with those terms.

Re:Good Luck

[tnk1]

It can be surprisingly easy to find out where someone has gone, actually, unless they talk to almost no one about it. In IT anyway.

I'd imagine that you might be able to get lost more easily if you were a warehouse worker.

I agree that this non-compete is a dead letter for someone like a warehouse worker. I just hope the scare tactic doesn't work on them.

Re:Good Luck

[tnk1]

Yes, you don't have to completely eat up the revenues of the whole company to make them reconsider. If enough is removed to make Bezos drop a pet project, or to make the board unhappy about the possibility of making a profit, it will cause a hit.

Still, it is scattershot. They might instead decide to lay off a bunch of people to recoup the cash and simply change locations or something.

Re:Good Luck

[TheGratefulNet]

"we're sorry we have to let you go from amazon. but here, please accept this free extra month of amazon prime for your trouble. acceptance of free month constitutes agreement not to sue our sorry asses."

Re:Good Luck

[ShanghaiBill]

That's exactly what a non-compete contract is: a threat.

Not in any legal sense. Just because you imagine it to be a threat because of rabid foam-at-the-mouth manufactured outrage, doesn't mean it really is. If a clause in a contract is unenforceable, it is not illegal to put it in the contract, it just can't be enforced. Amazon has made NO effort to enforce this clause against any warehouse workers, so there is no actionable tort against them.

There are real problems in the world to get outraged about. You should refocus on something less ridiculous.

Re:Good Luck

[LDAPMAN]

They can call all they want but most companies do not provide references beyond , "yes, he worked here from a to b". Many do not provide any information at all as there is no upside for them doing so and plenty of possible downside.

Re:Good Luck

[queequeg1]

In many states, yes. It would be a tort. Intentional interference with a contractual relation. However, in the states that recognize this claim, the competitor would generally have to know about the non-compete. Additionally, Amazon would have to prove harm, which might be hard to do in the case of this type of worker.

Re:Good Luck

[sumdumass]

I think you have it the other way around.

Suppose you put an application in with my company, and yes, warehouse workers are filling applications out and likely skipping the resume submission. I call your current employer
(XYZ), say I'm sumdumass with "ZYX", I need employment verification for LDAPMAN.

whether your current employer says anything or not, your current employer knows my company which competes with them was thinking of hiring you so you are obviously intending to ignore the non compete agreement and leave for a job they banned you from taking via the non compete. They can call my company after you quit and I can tell them to stuff it, but they still know. They could be crafty and send a fedex package to you at your workplace and see if it is accepted or returned to find that you are actually working there. They can do a lot of things but the point is, they know you likely ignored the non compete and likely would be working at one of the places that called for employment history validation.

Re:Good Luck

[Reeznarch]

Personally if I ran into this problem, I just wouldn't care. I probably wouldn't even bother showing up to court ffs. Not like I'll ever get out of debt, and they're not going to jail me for a civil complaint.

Re:Good Luck

[chuckugly]

I don't seem to get mod points but someone needs to mod you up.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Salary reduction on day T-1 to minimum. Salary increase on firing day to minimum+$0.01.

Re:Good Luck

[STATEnotCITY]

I'm super interested, where is that law in effect? (Just curious.)

Re:Good Luck

[As_I_Please]

A quick search says either Germany or Belgium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Any judge, who doesn't own lots of Amazon shares, would declare that void on "restraint of trade".

It's a bullshit clause intended purely to intimate the weak.

Re:Good Luck

[radarskiy]

"Most warehouse workers are 'judgement proof', in that they don't have the assets to pay anything."

This also mean that most warehouse workers cannot afford individual legal counsel to advise them that they are judgement-proof, thus are vulnerable to intimidation.

But at least they aren't unionized!

Re:Good Luck

[nerdonamotorcycle]

"Good will" is part of what you sell when you sell a business. If I have a store called "Joe's Bakery," and I sell it, then past customers are going to continue to patronize that store under its new owners, based on the expected quality of the merchandise sold. This is why businesses sell for more than the sum total of the fixtures, inventory, receivables, and raw materials on hand less liabilities--that extra is "good will". Another example: let's say I work as a hairdresser at Jane's Hair Salon and Day Spa. Lots of Jane's customers make appointments with me because they like my work. One day Emma comes in to get her hair cut, and "Hey, where's Frank?" "Oh, Frank doesn't work here any more." Emma does some research and finds out that I'm working at Vera's Coiffure, in the next town over. Emma then starts coming to Vera's so that I can cut and style her hair. These are the kinds of "good will" that CNCs are meant to cover.

Re:Good Luck

[sumdumass]

Very interesting. Thanks for the clear explanation.

It would seem that if the summery is correct about the contents of the non compete and the information I found about the different states is also correct, it might not even be enforceable on warehouse workers in Amazon's own home state of Washington.

Re:Good Luck

[ancientt]

You assume I'm outraged. I do understand the need for non-compete, non-disclosure and intellectual property ownership transfer clauses in contracts; in the right place and circumstances. I even understand the difference between enforceable and unenforceable contracts.

I'm not outraged.

I think it is silly and expect it to be unenforceable, and I doubt they have any intent of enforcing it. That doesn't mean it isn't a threat. There is no real contract without some threat of enforcement, and that's the key word: threat.

Whether Amazon takes action or not, it is a threat which discourages specific actions. It doesn't matter whether it is actively enforced or not. That's the real danger, the threat discourages specific actions. That's a threat, even if they choose not to follow through on it.

There is a place for those types of clauses. This is obviously not the place and it is good that people are bothered by it. I may not be particularly bothered, certainly not outraged, but I'm glad that unreasonable contracts get negative attention.

Re:Good Luck

[Jane Q. Public]

Yep. Last time I checked non-competes were not really allowed in my state either, and my guess is that an attempt at enforcing one against a lowly hourly laborer would be laughed out of court. Flag as Inappropriate

IANAL, but as I understand it, even where non-compete do apply they can only be applied to "specialty knowledge", like trade secrets, learned on the job.

Which means this is pretty meaningless in the context of a normal warehouse worker, unless it pertains to technical knowledge of, for example, how robotic retrieval systems work.

Re:Good Luck

[Aighearach]

If the company actually sues you, these types of cases are easy to get a lawyer for on contingency for the counter-suit.

It is a tort to cause somebody to be unable to work. Trying to ban them from the industry they have experience in, when they're not a worker with specialized knowledge about the company's professional whatthewhat, is a giant counter-suit.

And, did they give these workers a pay raise when they added the clause, that they can argue in court was worth 18 months of work? No? Then it isn't enforceable in any state, because of the basic common-law requirement for contracts to be based on a "consideration" given. If they argue some tiny amount counts as consideration, they'll be admitting to an unfair business practice that denies somebody the right to work.

They wouldn't just lose, they'd get shafted on the counter-suit. Except that they would actually just pay lots of money and settle.

This is a clause added entirely because Amazon's lawyers are assholes. Luckily, asshole lawyers don't get to file suits without the permission of the senior execs.

I predict somebody will quit, and then sue them for 18 months of pay because they're only experienced in warehouse work. They'll not only get an easy settlement, (these contracts are only legal for professional employees, not for laborers) they'll also throw it out for everybody else. They'll still probably have to pay settlements to a bunch of people who quit or were fired during the policy, and then didn't find work immediately afterwards.

They should really hire some competent lawyers instead of these "full asshole" guys, because they're creating a giant pile of needless liability for nothing.

Re:Good Luck

[Aighearach]

Unless the court is going to slap them with a $40+ billion fine, Amazon will have reaped in magnitudes more in revenue from these workers than they will pay out in a fine.

That presumes that they have a worker shortage, and if they could just hire more workers, they'd make more money. It is highly unlikely for that to be true.

More likely, they already hire the number of workers they want, they could hire more workers at the same pay rate, and keeping unhappy people from quitting doesn't actually increase their profits at all.

Companies don't wait for a cost/benefit analysis to put asshole bullshit into the contract. A lot of companies start off with that sort of thing just because the lawyer said it is a standard practice, without ever having a business analysis, or even an actual legal concern.

Re:Good Luck

[Aighearach]

The general theory is that if it costs them more than they think the policy saved them, then it will moderate their behavior because they'll have wished they made more money, and they would have.

The problem with small penalties isn't related to the company being able to survive them, but to the fact that the penalties for things are often smaller than the perceived profit from having done it. Here, there is no obvious large profit. If they reduced turnover by some percent that would save them money, but not huge amounts. It might not have to be a huge fine.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Amazon sell anything? So a worker who signed this would be banned from working for any company that sells anything? Overly broad, indeed.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Even their lawyers will tell you their NCA's are unenforceable

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Your second paragraph is rambling and incoherent.
Don't drink and post.

Re:Good Luck

[slazzy]

Well it's a good thing Amazon doesn't sell many types of products - oh wait...

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong. That's only for your state.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

The wording takes the last highest amount being paid upon a raise, not "the previous raise".
Doing what you say would result in my non-compete payment being the most I was ever paid at the company for normal salary.

I haven't contemplated it before, but in actuality this could screw an employer in the case of a position transfer, assuming the new position paid less than the previous one. But I've never been in that situation before, and as I said never thought about that until now.

The point was I'd be more than willing to not work in my field so long as I am paid for it.
I would even be willing to renegotiate the amount to be lower than my regular salary after the fact.

But I will not do so for free.

Re:Good Luck

[Hognoxious]

Have you seen the breadth of things Amazon sells?

If they aren't selling it already, give them time and they will be.

http://www.mondaq.com/x/296274...

Re:Good Luck

[nospam007]

"That's a pretty broad exclusion to be enforceable."

In Europe they'd have to pay the guy for 18 months if they want that.

Re:Good Luck

[MrL0G1C]

How many warehouse workers can afford to fight Amazon in court?

It's a scummy move by Amazon, there should be laws against this kind of thing, with very large fines.

Re:Good Luck

[MrL0G1C]

They'll sue their ex-employee's new employer,

Nonsense, they don't have a contract with the new employer so they can't sue them, the employment contract is with the employee, that is the only person they can sue.

Re:Good Luck

[MrL0G1C]

You really think Amazon wants to take the PR hit by suing a contractor who worked in their warehouse for 10 dollars an hour?

Have you seen the way they treat their warehouse workers, they don't give a crap, they would have no qualms about suing the employee. 'No news is bad news'

Re: Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Manufactured outrage is what happens when climate change deniers try to make an international scientist conspiracy out of a few emails. This is a real outrage because Amazon wrote it, they meant to write it, and it means what it says.

The number of capitalist apologists around here never ceases to amaze me.

Re:Good Luck

[Livius]

Enforceable or not, the statement it makes about their attitude towards their employees is pretty clear.

Re:Good Luck

[Livius]

What were *you* in trouble for? Having curiosity and compassion about a fellow human being?

Re: Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Privatize profits and socialize expenses. It's the real American Way.

Re: Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a terrible insult to cunts everywhere. There must be something more apt.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

There are lots of clauses placed into contracts that are not legally binding under current law. Some of those clauses are put in because the parties drafting the contract aren't necessarily aware that they're not legal, and other clauses are there so that if the law is changed, the clause might be able to come into effect.

This represents unethical practice of law on a massive scale.

The legal profession is in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the legal system. The right to ethical practice of law arises under the 9th Amendment as a right "retained by the people". Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided when reasonably possible.

Legal professionals have a significant conflict of interest regarding how complex laws, contracts, encumbrances, covenants, and so forth can be. Unneeded complexity with respect to any of these creates unnecessary complexity in the legal system (which subsumes far more than just laws), and thus creates an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals. Hence the ethical conflict of interest, which makes creating this stuff, under the 9th Amendment, unethical practice of law, and illegal. Extra terms in contracts, beyond some really basic minimum that any reasonable society would accept, represent unneeded complexity and thus are always unethical.

Unfortunately, while the huge amount of unethical lawyer jokes suggests most people have some intuitive understanding that the system is badly broken, few people understand why and how it is broken. Until there is massive public pressure on the legal profession, they will continue to ignore their ethical obligations.

The situation we face now is much like the situation when the infamous "Jim Crow" laws were in effect. Everybody with a functioning brain understood that those laws violated the Bill of Rights (which James Madison fully intended to apply to the states), which meant enforcement of the laws or even allowing them to continue on the books was unethical practice of law and illegal, but the lawyers simply didn't care. It took a massive civil rights movement to fix things. It will probably take something similar to fix the ethics problems in law.

There were similar legal ethics issues, of course, with respect to slavery.

Certainly the right to pursue one's chosen occupation is a fundamental human right (we exclude criminal activity from the definition of "occupation" here), and thus protected under the 9th Amendment. This makes "non-compete" clauses illegal under all circumstances.

Re:Good Luck

[lsatenstein]

That's a pretty broad exclusion to be enforceable.

The non-compete is illegal where I live. No organization can prevent you from improving yourself (a better job), or earning a living by going elsewhere. The exception is (not tested in the courts), if you open your own business providing competitive products to a competitor of equal size. The better job includes going to a competitor. Thus, the only protection a company has is the "trade secrets portion", and that is hard to define.

Re: Good Luck

[BlueTrin]

You seem to think that the big guy always win: in the U.S. it may be more true. But you forgot a big factor here: nobody will go in court to enforce such an agreement pointlessly: if you go to the court over a warehouse worker, and the jury goes against you because they find the agreement abusive, then you set a precedent which will weaken your position the next time you need to enfore such an agreement.

Therfore contrarily to what you said the small guy with a lesser job has actually not much to be scared of in reality.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, how likely do you think it will be for a former employer to keep track of their ex-employees so closely that this would be a serious issue?

We *are* talking about a company (Amazon) with a certain expertise in technology.

I think it would probably be failrly simple and easy for them to set up.

Re:Good Luck

[mr_mischief]

A contract is easier to enforce than many trade secrets laws, and can apply to proprietary information that doesn't neatly fit the definition of trade secrets. But yes, there's also trade secrets laws. They complement one another, non-competes and other things.

Re:Good Luck

[AK Marc]

Even in states where non competes are allowed, the contract as explained here would likely be invalid. Think about the practical application. Someone that worked for Amazon leaves. Unless they work in a service-only industry (as a janitor or a lawyer), there's little they could do. They couldn't work for a book store (if there are any left), Wal-Mart, a movie theater, or millions of other places.

The allowable reasons for a non-compete are to protect the previous employer. A non-compete that offers no such protections, but is purely punitive is illegal in all 50 states. Though some may require more appearances in court to prove that point.

Re:Good Luck

[AK Marc]

They aren't a threat, because the "or else" must be stated or implied. I've had a non-compete in a contract. But they were too cheap to run it past a lawyer. The only remedy the contract allowed if I breached it was for them to terminate it. That made sense in that if I came to work drunk, they could fire me on the spot and not give me notice, a hearing, or other recourse. But if I quit, then take a job somewhere else that competes, there is no remedy allowed in the contract, so it's a threat like "go away or I shall taunt you a second time" is a threat. It is a statement of purpose, but since the consequence carries no harm, it doesn't meet my definition of threaten. "state one's intention to take hostile action against (someone) in retribution for something done or not done." Taunting someone isn't "hostile".

Re:Good Luck

[AK Marc]

You can't enter into all kinds of contracts. The constitution bans you from selling yourself into slavery, for instance, and various other laws prevent various other terms. Doesn't matter who knows or signs.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate playing Devil's Advocate, but it may be so that Amazon has leverage against a competitor or reverse-engineering company which engages in industrial espionage by sending in a warehouse employee to take a sneak peek. It may sound far-fetched, but I'm not so sure it is. Amazon has invested a lot in developing an edge in logistics, and that efficiency is going to be a key factor in their future roll-outs like Prime Now.

Yeah, they can't sue a third-party employer who hires a former worker, but they could take action against an organization which conspired to break the agreement.

Re:Good Luck

[sumdumass]

for lying to the boss when he asked me to repeat what I heard and I said it was about someone else.

Re:Good Luck

[ancientt]

It is explicitly stated in the contract:

Any breach of this Agreement may cause Amazon irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. As a result, Amazon will be entitled to the issuance by a court of competent jurisdiction of an injunction, restraining order, or other equitable relief in favor of itself, without the necessity of posting a bond, restraining Employee from committing or continuing to commit any such violation.

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploa...

Re:Good Luck

[AK Marc]

So the "penalty" is that they will file for an injunction to prevent you from working at the new place. No loss of money. No fees or monetary penalty at all. The only "punishment" is forcing you to get a new job. And that's only if they get a court injunction, which might get thrown out by a judge looking at the invalid clause.

Re:Good Luck

[Rakarra]

That still assumes the violation is noticed and acted upon.

Seriously, how likely do you think it will be for a former employer to keep track of their ex-employees so closely that this would be a serious issue?

I used to work at a consulting company. If you ever quit the company, they would wait for a few days, then start calling around to the various companies you were ever placed at and casually asked to be connected to your desk. Most of the time, they'd get a puzzled "sorry, that person doesn't work here." But if they ever got through and verified that a former employee worked there now, it was lawsuit time.

Re:Good Luck

[dywolf]

shouldnt be allowed in ANY states

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

This is dead wrong. The new employer can get sued for tortious interference.

Re:Good Luck

[mjwalshe]

Noncompetes are very hard to enforce even where they are legal - get caught with trade secretes and it much much harder for the employee to win.

Re:Good Luck

[Copid]

You really think Amazon wants to take the PR hit by suing a contractor who worked in their warehouse for 10 dollars an hour?

Yeah, I've heard that stuff a lot from employers trying to get ridiculous bullshit into contracts with me. "It says we can burn your home to the ground and sow your fields with salt for no reason, but we'd never actually do it. What? Remove the clause? Well... no."

Re:Good Luck

[ThatsNotPudding]

When I left a job I had my lawyer review the non-compete.

Then I doubt it was working in a warehouse, was it?

Re:Good Luck

[Registered Coward v2]

When I left a job I had my lawyer review the non-compete.

Then I doubt it was working in a warehouse, was it?

No, but my point was that my comments were based on a real professional's opionion, not the usual /. legal advice. While I realize many people could not afford a lawyer there are avenues for free legal aid available as well.

Re:Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, its very specific. What it clearly does not include is the "distribution" of those products or services, which would be the primary focus of warehouse workers duties. Someone picking a product and putting it in a box has nothing to do with the sale(or the other listed factors) of that item.

Re:Good Luck

[mr_mischief]

One quiver, many arrows.

Re:Good Luck

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Isn't it wonderful how your totally 'voluntary' agreement to basically all contracts required to not live in a cave frees you from the dead hand of the inefficient state judicial system and gives you access to high quality, competitive, private sector justice?

nice try but waste of legal fees

[schematix]

Overly broad non-competes are almost universally unenforceable. The lawyers writing this non-sense know this.

Re:nice try but waste of legal fees

[Kierthos]

And the silly thing is supposed to apply to seasonal workers as well, so 3-4 months of employment creates an 18-month non-compete clause?

Yeah, not only should this not be enforceable, but whoever at Amazon thought this was a good idea should have their head removed from their arse.

Re:nice try but waste of legal fees

[Lunix Nutcase]

Sure, they know it's likely not enforceable in some states, but many of the workers will likely have to spend more money than they have in net worth to fight it. Amazon has more than enough money to make the lives of these workers miserable in court.

Re:nice try but waste of legal fees

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yeah, not only should this not be enforceable, but whoever at Amazon thought this was a good idea should have their head removed from their arse.

Why? Amazon management probably loves this. It's a scare tactic and they know they have more than enough money to drag out court battles for the few people who will ever try to fight it.

Re:nice try but waste of legal fees

[gstoddart]

Yes, but they also know you have not got the resources to hire more lawyers than they have.

Basically this is shitting on your workers to keep them in fear of losing their jobs.

I always scratch those sections out in contracts. Unless you pay me 100% of my salary for the period of time I'm not allowed to compete, I'm not signing it.

Crap like this should be illegal. And in many sane places, it actually is.

Re:nice try but waste of legal fees

[itzly]

Wouldn't it be cheaper for Amazon to hire a hit man ?

Re:nice try but waste of legal fees

[Lunix Nutcase]

But they don't want to kill the people. They just want them to be too afraid to leave or to do anything that will get them fired.

Re:nice try but waste of legal fees

[Fwipp]

I'd rather see their head removed from their neck.

Re:nice try but waste of legal fees

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem.

The Market will solve this just like it solves all problems when the government stays out of the way. People will simply refuse to go to work for Amazon's minimum wages until Amazon drops this restriction.

Re:nice try but waste of legal fees

[Lunix Nutcase]

Did you forget your sarcasm tag?

Re:nice try but waste of legal fees

[Moof123]

My guess is that mostly it would serve as a coercive device against any disgruntled employee who sues them. Bring a suit, and they will pull this agreement out to immediately put almost any plaintiff on the defensive.

Re:nice try but waste of legal fees

[jafiwam]

But they don't want to kill the people. They just want them to be too afraid to leave or to do anything that will get them fired.

Why the fuck would they bother with that?

Last I heard, those jobs were coveted and easy to fill with a long waiting list to get in.

Re:nice try but waste of legal fees

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you pay me 100% of my salary for the period of time I'm not allowed to compete, I'm not signing it.

*that's* how it should be for any no-compete.. still on the payroll for the duration but no obligation to report-in.... then AFTER that's up your unemployment can kick in.....

Re:nice try but waste of legal fees

[Copid]

Overly broad non-competes are almost universally unenforceable. The lawyers writing this non-sense know this.

So why, in a world with a professional class of licensed legal experts who write contracts, are lawyers allowed to put obviously illegal and unenforceable stuff into contracts and pay no personal or professional penalty for it? A pilot who regularly disobeyed FAA regulations or a doctor who consistently gave bad medical advice would be penalized, but attornies can write contracts that don't mean anything and the only thing that happens is a judge draws a line through their nonsense and gives them credit for whatever they got right. WTF? With a system like that, *I* could write contracts and take fees from clients.

Bottom line...

[SpzToid]

That's bullshit. if ever there were a reason for lawyers, this bullshit serves their purpose in life. Go ahead, enforce this; just go ahead and try.

Re:Bottom line...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Um...lawyers wrote this.

In the red corner, we have lawyers! In the blue corner, we have lawyers!
Come out fighting. Whoever wins, its a lawyer!

Re:Bottom line...

[Literaphile]

Lawyers wrote it on instructions from Amazon, the client. Try knowing what you're talking about before putting your fingers on the keyboard.

Re:Bottom line...

[mwvdlee]

That still doesn't shield them from moral responsibility.
If their client told them to murder a witness, should they do so?

Re: Bottom line...

[Literaphile]

You're not seriously saying those two things are equal, are you? Murder is against the law and is violent act. Drafting a contract is neither of those things.

Re: Bottom line...

[mwvdlee]

I'm not saying they are equal, as you probably already understood, but the NDA"s are obviously amoral and probably not legal either; a lawyer has a moral responsibility of the things they do as part of their employment just like every employee has moral responsibility. I understand the moral responsibility of a lawyer make take a somewhat more dualistic form (like knowingly defending a guilty criminal), but this situation isn't even remotely close to that.

Re:Bottom line...

[YrWrstNtmr]

And part of their duty is to say to the client: "Yeah...you might not want to do this."

Re:Bottom line...

[jimbo]

They're probably never going to try enforcing it but if they do; you're absolutely right the warehouse worker can easily fight back. After all it's a free country, Like any free citizen being strong armed by a large threatening entity all he needs to do is understand his rights, face this 90 billion dollar company head on and hire a competent legal team.

Re:Bottom line...

[dywolf]

good luck fighting a lawyer without a lawyer

I suggest a million dollar fine

[gnasher719]

for every single case where Amazon tries to enforce this against a warehouse worker. This is absolutely f***ing disgusting.

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[blang]

Yes, it is actually slavery.

Someone who has signed such a contract would be forced to stay and work in same shitty job with same shitty pay forever if he wants to put food on the table. He has in fact been removed from the competitive part of the workforce unless he is retrained to do something completely different such as teacher or nurse,

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[Lunix Nutcase]

Only a million? Amazon pulled in $89 billion in revenue in 2014. Amazon makes a million dollars every 6 minutes. A million dollars for Amazon is like pennies.

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[Chess_the_cat]

Revenues aren't profits. All that money needs to go back into the company to keep it afloat. On $89 billion dollar revenues, expenditures exceeded that figure; they lost $240 million last fiscal year. Million dollar fines would definitely hurt Amazon.

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[Anonymous Coward]

They put a great deal of money back into the business for R&D, data centers, expansion etc. They "lost" $240 million.

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[Lunix Nutcase]

On $89 billion dollar revenues, expenditures exceeded that figure; they lost $240 million last fiscal year.

That "loss" was due to the fact that Amazon basically reinvests pretty much all of their revenue back in the company.

Million dollar fines would definitely hurt Amazon.

No, it wouldn't. They would simply reinvest a fraction of a fraction of a percent less back into the company.

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[pspahn]

... unless he is retrained to do something completely different such as teacher or nurse ...

So you're saying we will be come a more educated society as a result? I jest, of course, but it's an interesting thought. Forcing people to retrain to another field will certainly broaden their knowledge of the world, or at least motivate people to have that broad array of knowledge in the first place.

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[Darinbob]

Better solution would be if people just stopped buying from Amazon. But no, people got to have their stuff online, otherwise they'd be forced to head to a store like some primitive tribes do.

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[itzly]

Forcing people to retrain to another field will certainly broaden their knowledge of the world

Another field like selling drugs, prostitution or armed robbery ?

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[Garridan]

Did you read that clause?

(or intended to be sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon in the future)

No matter what job the employee tries to get, all Amazon would have to do is draw up some business plan to enter that field. With the increasing trend of privitization of government services, not even public sector jobs are safe. This is an 18-month unemployment clause, plain and simple.

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[HideyoshiJP]

I see haven't heard of Amazon Narc, Amazon Love, or Amazon Management.

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he willingly sign it? Yes? Not slavery.

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[russotto]

Yeah, I was thinking this agreement might actually violate the Thirteenth Amendment. Not being sarcastic.

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[Alomex]

Yes, it is actually slavery.

You are correct, at least as far as the Supreme Court of Canada and Superior Court of Ontario are concerned. They have ruled time and time again that overreaching non-compete agreements sign away unalienable rights and are thus invalid.

Noncompetes which are limited in scope on the other hand are routinely upheld.

IANAL; ASDA

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[HiThere]

Willingly is an interesting term. In Rome some people sold themselves into slavery to feed their families. Did they do so willingly? They certainly ended up being slaves.

Re:I suggest a million dollar fine

[CauseBy]

I see what you are saying but personally I'm careful when comparing situations to slavery. There is no work situation where you are paid and have the freedom to quit -- even with hardship -- which is tantamount to slavery.

What this is, is a shitty work situation. Not all shitty work situations are 'actually slavery', even hyperbolicly.

Adopt the German Rules

[purpledinoz]

In Germany, a non-compete clause is only enforceable if compensated, since that goes against the the constitutional right to work where you want. The company has to pay at least 50% of your salary during the non-compete period. That means even if you did sign a non-compete, it's not valid unless the old company is compensating you. Effectively, this forces companies to balance the need for a non-compete with the cost. Effectively, this means only high up people have the clauses in it.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany, a non-compete clause is only enforceable if compensated,...

That's called "consideration" in the Anglo/law World.

And in our World it means .. if you want this job, sign the fucking thing you asshole.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[Yebyen]

F$*# that, use California rules. In California, a company that insists on having an invalid non-compete agreement signed by their workers under threat of firing may be liable for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Which non-competes are unenforceable/therefore illegal? Basically all of them.

The only time a non-compete agreement is valid (regardless of consideration) is when the person signing away their rights does it as part of a sale of a business and the goodwill of that business. So, you can't create the next WhateverApp, sell it for $X-leventy billion, write a deal that says you will not compete with the business you just sold, and declare that non-compete invalid under California law.

But basically every other non-compete is automatically invalid (even when it is for compensation). If you are paid under the terms of a non-compete for your cooperation, and you break the terms of the deal, you will still be entitled to keep what you have received (that deal was not legally binding) and the company's only recourse is to stop sending the payments. They cannot sue you for violation of contract terms.

Requisite: IANAL but I play one on slashdot.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[rogoshen1]

The German rules make far more sense dude. In some instances a non-compete DOES make sense, and it should be an option.. but it shouldn't be used to handcuff someone to a company.

Attaching a monetary cost for the company protects employees from abusive employers, and let's a company protect their inside information / processes for a bit.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[The New Guy 2.0]

That's not just Germany, that kind of law is also in Massachusetts. (where Amazon doesn't have a warehouse..)

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

The German rules make far more sense dude.

Not if you only get paid 50% of your salary during the non-compete period. It should be at least 100% salary plus medical benefits, up to when you are allowed to get another job. Anything else is effectively a handcuff tying you to your current job.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[ze_jua]

Same rules in France.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[houghi]

In Belgium when you have a non-compete, you will get what is quoted in the contract. (Unless you start working for the competition)
It also depends on the job and will have a limited reasonable duration.

I had one, but unfortunately they annulled it when they fired me.(1) Otherwise I would have been given a year extra payment while working at a company in the same job, but not in the same field.

I know somebody who started working for the competition and in the identical job, but they just named the job differently. He never asked the money and the company never followed up on it.

I know of somebody else who was forced to leave their new job, but got the money. The law will side with the worker most of the time and unless there is a clear abuse of what is reasonable, then nobody actualy follows up on it.

If you get fired, most of the time it will be annulled and if people leave, they just go to somebody who is not the competitor.

All that said, if you are anything like a blue collor worker or an office serf, no way they could stick that to you. I sign them gladly and hope they forget when they fire me when they need to cut back.

(1)They gave me 5.5 months pay instead of the legal required 3, so that was nice.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[Yebyen]

I don't know, I like the fact that the non-compete is only valid while the payments are ongoing, but I think it's still going to be a problem for a lot of people if they are forced to sign a paper that says they can be terminated and barred from working for the competition in exchange for 50% of their salary ongoing.

If I was a specialist, I would consider the threat of losing 50% of my salary to be very tough to cope with, but losing 100% even harder. California rules recognize that when the "consideration" is "you get/keep the job" that's pretty much the definition of duress, it's Hobson's choice, it's not really a choice at all. You sign the paper because you want to keep your job, or you need to have the job.

You are free to reject the non-compete, as an added bonus you get to lose your job and you may not be entitled to unemployment or any severance package for your refusal to cooperate.

I have never been a business owner, and it's good to get different perspectives. I can see how it would be attractive to get 50% of what you're paid for not working anymore. As a knowledge worker I have a hard time imagining a scenario where it's worthwhile for me to give up on making money at what I've been training to do since high school for any length of time. Maybe I am imagining the scope of a non-compete to be larger than it is in fact.

Maybe I would see it differently if 50% of my salary was a bigger number ;)

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems like a completely reasonable way to do it. Even if you picked a lower percentage, like 10%, I bet I wouldn't have one. Amazon warehouse workers definitely wouldn't have one.

But as it is, every job I ever take (unless I switch careers) will have a non compete.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[jbeaupre]

As understand it:

Similar rules in all of the US. You must be compensated for agreeing to limit your future work options. The amount is left up to the two parties. But the non-compete can't be a condition of employment. Signing a non-complete when you get the job is generally considered unenforceable. Which is why they try get you to sign it again when you leave and are handing you severance pay. Then they can say they did compensate you and you agreed.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[Yebyen]

I don't think so. It varies state-to-state.

In New York, non-compete may be valid if it is limited in scope or duration, regardless of consideration offered. In other words, you can be barred from competition (in your specific industry, for a reasonable specified length of time as determined by the courts) with no specific compensation if that's the terms of the non-compete agreement. Those agreements can be mandatory as a condition of employment.

So as usual New York State residents are basically fucked.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany, a non-compete clause is only enforceable if compensated, since that goes against the the constitutional right to work where you want. The company has to pay at least 50% of your salary during the non-compete period.

Even better idea: the company should pay 200% of the highest yearly salary for the last three years employee worked for the company. And they must continue paying that until the non-compete clause is no longer in effect. That would force the company to carefully consider whether they truly want to enforce this clause in the contract.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[phantomfive]

The German rules make far more sense dude.

No it doesn't. Non-competes limit your ability to make a living. People are more important than corporations.

In some instances a non-compete DOES make sense, and it should be an option..

I notice you didn't name any instances.

but it shouldn't be used to handcuff someone to a company.

You are right, but they are used for that..

A company should keep its employees by paying well, and by making it a good place to work. If the only way you can keep employees is by making them sign non-competes, then your company is a lousy company to begin with, and the world would be made better by having someone compete with it.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[rogoshen1]

yeah should have specified that, the 50% is a bit onerous. Still though, the non-competes in the US stack the deck completely in the employers favor, and that's just simply wrong.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

"The German rules make far more sense dude."

They might make sense in Germany, with better social services and rate of pay. But you try and tell me that 50% of the minimum wage that Amazon pays warehouse staff is something you could survive on? Non-competes are basically just an end-run around laws that prevent indentured workers, and shifts even more power to the employer side of the relationship.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a also the issue of what their definition of salary is. Look at some of the more obvious examples that get minimum wage salaries, but with monthly bonuses in 6 digits.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[Calydor]

The thing is that getting 50% of your pay means the business is going to balk at throwing it at anyone who doesn't actually have access to 'classified' knowledge; the sysadmin knowing the entire network, high-up managers with insight into future company plans and so on. So if you're laid off, and you get 50% of your normal pay, you probably in most cases had a job where you could put something aside, and with that 50% pay you will have a much longer time to find a different job, AND you can choose something at a low pay that isn't competing. You could manage the network of that non-profit organization you've been helping out at anyway, for one.

Having your entire pay removed, AND being told not to work with anything that Amazon might at some point in the future decide to dabble in? Yeah, welcome to unemployment.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

At the bottom of most contracts there is usually a clause stating which jurisdiction shall be used to enforce it.
Which is it in this case?
Whether that is in itself enforcable of course ... it just makes another argument for the lawyers to draw out.

Re:Adopt the German Rules

[glhturbo]

Massachusetts. (where Amazon doesn't have a warehouse..)

But soon, they will:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/bus...

Robots may save the workers

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon's already putting in the Kiva system, and is starting a "picking challenge" so there is going to be hope for even the workers who just stand and pick items from the Kiva shelves that pull up to their workarea to escape from the appalling work conditions!

What we need...

[gurps_npc]

Is punishment for writing bad contracts.

Right now - with minimal punitive effects - the system encourages people to over-reach when writing such contracts, in the hopes of intimidating people from using their legal rights.

This effect, rather than a few rare extreme punitive tort cases (i.e. suing because the coffee is too hot), is why we get said contracts and why we have to sign away our rights whenever we decided to go say white water rafting.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to see Eulas completely neutered at the federal level. "No, you can't foist this 3,000 page pseudo-contract on me after I paid $500 for your phone/doo-dad and you made no mention of it."

Re:What we need...

[The New Guy 2.0]

ELUAs were first needed to protect software copyrights... now in the era of DRM, watermarking, and other copy protections they should just be able to put a "copyright 2015" notice and be done with it.

Re:What we need...

[houghi]

In Belgium I followed a cource on hunman resource law. What they said to me (as employer, not as employee) was that you can basically write everything in a contract, but that does not make it legal. Not only could it mean that a part of the contract can be trown out, but the whole contract can be trown out AND the law will be even more inclined to side with whatever the emplyer tells.

On the other hand, if the people do not complain within a year after termination, you are good.

Th ebest defence an emplyee has to the question of why he did not compain when he was working there would be "I was afraid to loose my job." Just having that feeling is enough.

Once case I know of is where a manager who signed that he would do extra hours for no extra pay documented all the extra hours and got them payed out, because that is what the law says. Say they had to pay several years of extra hours.

Now before you start suing your company, please go to a lawyer (or your union) IRL, because every situation is different.

That's a really good riddle

[Waffle Iron]

Can anyone identify a product or service that Amazon doesn't sell or provide?

Job prospects are going to be few and far between if you leave Amazon.

Re:That's a really good riddle

[greg1104]

Can anyone identify a product or service that Amazon doesn't sell or provide?

Union representation.

Re:That's a really good riddle

[LessThanObvious]

Amazon is the Wal-Mart of the internet. We should build a drone large enough to deliver Jeff Bezos to a remote island where he can no longer harm anyone.

Re:That's a really good riddle

[greg1104]

Just send him to Libertarian Island with Peter Thiel, and then they can all be killed by pirates once they're outside of US jurisdiction.

Re:That's a really good riddle

[Anonymous Coward]

hookers

Very necessary precaution

[wyattstorch516]

Can't have those robots leave and take their AI to the competition.

Re:Very necessary precaution

[rogoshen1]

Or on the converse, in future-world, only the robots/AI will truly be free.

People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[mi]

As long as Amazon is not in a position to force anyone to work for them, what business is it of ours, what they ask of people willing to work for them?

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate shill says what?

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[itzly]

Not everybody is always in a position to choose from a range of different employers when looking for a job to feed their family. For some people, Amazon may the only reasonable option available at the time.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Lunix Nutcase]

Because some of us actually have empathy and don't agree with ridiculous contracts that bar people from being able to find gainful employment because they happen to leave or get fired from Amazon? Many of the people who will sign this are likely desperate for a job and Amazon is taking advantage of that by adding in scary clauses into their employment contract that provides the worker ZERO BENEFIT.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Lunix Nutcase]

And even if they did have a wide range of choices these clauses are still bullshit. It should never be seen as reasonable, outside of some pretty extreme circumstances, that any worker be forced to sign away any ability to get gainful employment in the field they have experience in for the 'privilege' of a job.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Jason Levine]

Just because people choose to work in a place, doesn't mean the company gets to trample its worker's rights. Besides, it might not have been much of a choice. Suppose someone loses their job and is out of work for awhile. Money gets tight and they need to feed his family. He is offered a job at Amazon and no other prospects are forthcoming. Should he decline the job on principal/due to the non-compete contract clause, thus putting his family in deeper financial peril? Or should he accept the job protecting his family from financial ruin now but at the possible non-compete expense further down the line? Not everyone has a lineup of a dozen companies vying to hire them every time they find themselves unemployed.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[DigitAl56K]

Very few people are ever in a position to force you to do anything, and yet you may still be in no position but to accept their propositions. For example, perhaps you need to eat and keep a roof over your head and there aren't a lot of other opportunities in your area or fitting your qualifications. We have laws to protect people in these situations. Telling someone that they can't exercise their skillset and background for 18 months after they leave a position without otherwise providing due compensation is about as clear as an abuse of overwhelming power during a negotiation as you can get. Almost nobody would agree to that given a real choice, other than due to short-term need.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Mashiki]

Most of amazon's warehouses are in the asshole of nowhere, that means that many people don't have any choice but to work for them.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as plantation owners are not a position to /force/ anyone to become slaves, what business is it of ours if they buy them from willing slavers?

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[swan5566]

That argument assumes a level playing field when negotiating terms for employment to be valid, which does not exist for that level of employees. You could justify just about any type corporate practice using that argument.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

Abuse of what power? Amazon has no control over you. These things carry absolutely no weight at this level. Find any enforcement of non-compete clauses below a C-level employee. It's not realistic for Amazon to even know when it's violated, nor is it a specific enough contract for our courts to take it seriously. This is alarmist.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Lunix Nutcase]

Then don't sign it!

Right, it's not like people need money to buy food, shelter, etc. Fucking bastards should just be homeless.

You don't have a right to a job, a job is a privilege.

Maybe in your psychotic world view. Many people in the world don't share your viewpoint.

Look, if they offered you a job at a some ridiculous minimum salary like $20K a year, you would say no.

Not if the other choice is to become destitute and homelesss.

The fact that you are hungry for work is not Amazon's or any other employers problem.

It also doesn't give Amazon or any employer the right to try to get you to sign away basic rights that many US states have mandated are rights.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[mi]

For some people, Amazon may the only reasonable option available at the time.

Well, if the non-compete clause is part of a (or even the) reasonable option, then what's the problem?

And it is not reasonable, then your statement is simply not true.

Fortunately, we don't need to decide it here for all — everyone can make their own choice.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[itzly]

You don't have a right to a job, a job is a privilege. You are hired at the discretion of the employer. They don't have to offer you the job and you don't have to take it.

Indeed. You have a perfectly fine choice of not taking a job and letting your family get evicted and freeze to death under a bridge.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Lunix Nutcase]

Well, if the non-compete clause is part of a (or even the) reasonable option, then what's the problem?

The problem is that the non-compete is not reasonable. Are you really such a pro-corporation psychopath not to see that?

And it is not reasonable, then your statement is simply not true.

Yeah, because being unemployed and homeless is clearly a reasonable choice. NOT.

Fortunately, we don't need to decide it here for all — everyone can make their own choice.

Except there isn't always a choice. People need a job and they shouldn't be held to onerous terms just because of that.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[mi]

Just because people choose to work in a place, doesn't mean they choose to trample the employer's rights. It works both ways — "the rich" have rights too, you know.

Or should he accept the job protecting his family from financial ruin now but at the possible non-compete expense further down the line?

We are all responsible for the choices we make. Each one is deciding for himself.

I can easily take your line of reasoning further — are the marital vows binding? How about Pledge of Allegiance — is that a "cohesive contract", that you are welcome to walk away from when money gets tight and a foreign power offers you payment in exchange for treason?

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

A better argument would be about coal miners. That slavery was actually done to free people with legal rights using unfair contracts.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[mi]

can't exercise their skillset and background for 18 months after they leave a position without otherwise providing due compensation

But they are provided compensation! Certainly enough, that they consider it acceptable to work for Amazon knowing about the restriction.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[itzly]

everyone can make their own choice.

Only if you have choices left to make.

And with your argument, the next step could be for Amazon to disallow you to leave the premises, in return for a bunk bed, food and a jumpsuit. After all, if you don't like it, you don't have to accept it.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Snowgen]

what business is it of ours, what they ask of people willing to work for them?

It's our business where we chose to spend our money. Some of us look beyond price and convenience, towards moral and ethical issues. It's our business because it informs our conscience and allows us to make better informed decisions about where we do business.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[itzly]

Amazon has no control over you. These things carry absolutely no weight at this level.

They have control as long as the employee thinks they do.

Re: People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[DigitAl56K]

The fact is a) an employee accepting such a position may not understand that area of the law, b) if Amazon chose to threaten an Employee it's quite likely someone working in the warehouse has no means to defend themselves and both parties know it.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

I see we have someone who thinks they will someday be rich. I hate to burst your bubble but it won't happen.

I mean think of the 1800's all of those rich landowners had their purchased goods stolen from them didn't they. How dare those rights get trampled. I think the rich deserve reparations for that theft. /sarc

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably go out of their way to place their warehouses in such locations for precisely that reason. At the very least it factors into finding the lowest cost location.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you're just a retard.

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[BarbaraHudson]

It's not realistic for Amazon to even know when it's violated

How about when the potential employer makes a few phone calls to their previous work history?

Re:People CHOOSE to work for Amazon

[amber_of_luxor]

>How about when the potential employer makes a few phone calls to their previous work history?

a) Once upon a time, Amazon outsourced that to another company. I don't know if they still do that;

b) Most employment verification is computer to computer. Whilst Amazon may have records that firm # 1 contacted them to verify employment, they won't necessarilly know why employment verification was needed;

So, everything?

[The Rizz]

The absolute worst part of this is that it effectively covers any job involved in any way with "any product or service sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon" ...which, since Amazon does a little of everything means that it effectively says "you agree not to work anywhere for 18 months after you quit or are fired."

Re:So, everything?

[Lunix Nutcase]

And they know it's bullshit. They also know most workers are going to be too timid to fight it.

Re:So, everything?

[TWX]

I don't think that the vast majority of warehouse workers are even going to consider that clause's existence when the leave Amazon for other work.

Re:So, everything?

[Lunix Nutcase]

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think any of us can really say how it will effect any single worker. I just know that everywhere I've worked where such a clause is required as part of a contract that it did have a visible impact on the willingness of people in wanting to leave for fear of the clause being enforced.

Re:So, everything?

[TWX]

Where I live no-competes are not enforceable, so here it doesn't matter. Even skilled technical workers that make real product-design contributions can change employers without penalty. One can go from Intel to Motorola to Honeywell and work in all of their IC packaging divisions without any penalty.

Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck are their employees supposed to know what is "intended to be sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon in the future"?

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

They could do what I did with my non-solicit agreement. I wrote the company a letter telling them I had no way to know who their customer's are and I need them to provide me a list of all their customers. Basically I told them that without the list I can't be held liable for approaching potential clients.

Of course I now have documentation showing they will not confirm who their customers are...so I'm good.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well played!

Maybe not overly broad.

[kaputtfurleben]

As I understand it, this is saying that warehouse workers (i.e. the people who do physical labor like moving products from point A to point B, or pack shipments) can't help to develop similar systems for their competitors using what they know about Amazon's practices. This does not seem to stop them from doing manual labor elsewhere.

This doesn't seem all that concerning to me. AFAIK this is the exact kind of thing non-competes are intended for. Perhaps 18 months is a little long. I'd guess 6-12 months is more reasonable.

But other than that, this doesn't seem all that bad.

Re:Maybe not overly broad.

[Lunix Nutcase]

You're confusing non-dislosure agreements with non-competes. A non-disclosure agreement covers not using proprietary knowledge of one company for the benefit of a future employer. A non-compete is basically trying to ban you from getting gainful employment in the very field in which you have work experience.

Re:Maybe not overly broad.

[hawguy]

As I understand it, this is saying that warehouse workers (i.e. the people who do physical labor like moving products from point A to point B, or pack shipments) can't help to develop similar systems for their competitors using what they know about Amazon's practices. This does not seem to stop them from doing manual labor elsewhere.

This doesn't seem all that concerning to me. AFAIK this is the exact kind of thing non-competes are intended for. Perhaps 18 months is a little long. I'd guess 6-12 months is more reasonable.

But other than that, this doesn't seem all that bad.

That was my reading too -- they aren't trying to prevent an Amazon warehouse worker from working in a Walmart stock room (even though Walmart and Amazon may be selling the same consumer goods), but are trying to prevent a warehouse worker becoming a Google consultant to help design Google's warehouse operations.

Sounds like there's some overlap with an NDA but Amazon is probably trying to cover all of their bases to give themselves more ammo in a lawsuit.

Re:Maybe not overly broad.

[kaputtfurleben]

Non-disclosures and non-competes overlap a little, and I think in this case non-competes could apply, because they might be working for the competitor to do this. That said, they wouldn't need to work for them to give out this information, so a non-disclosure would be more appropriate. They might already sign one of these. I don't know.

Re:Maybe not overly broad.

[hawguy]

As I understand it, this is saying that warehouse workers (i.e. the people who do physical labor like moving products from point A to point B, or pack shipments) can't help to develop similar systems for their competitors using what they know about Amazon's practices. This does not seem to stop them from doing manual labor elsewhere.

This doesn't seem all that concerning to me. AFAIK this is the exact kind of thing non-competes are intended for. Perhaps 18 months is a little long. I'd guess 6-12 months is more reasonable.

But other than that, this doesn't seem all that bad.

That was my reading too -- they aren't trying to prevent an Amazon warehouse worker from working in a Walmart stock room (even though Walmart and Amazon may be selling the same consumer goods), but are trying to prevent a warehouse worker becoming a Google consultant to help design Google's warehouse operations.

Sounds like there's some overlap with an NDA but Amazon is probably trying to cover all of their bases to give themselves more ammo in a lawsuit.

This was modded as a troll? Really?

Won't be applicable in their Canadian Operations

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in Canada your employer cannot prevent you from earning a living from a competitor after you were let-go/quit.
Canadian Law protects you from these NCAs, even if you signed it.

Take this job...

[Anonymous Coward]

and love it! (or else).

-Signed, Amazon

Re:Take this job...

[Anonymous Coward]

PS.

You've exceeded your air conditioning ration for the day.

Corporate sociopaths gone berzerk

[blind biker]

This is not enforceable even in the US... right?

RIGHT??

Re:Corporate sociopaths gone berzerk

[Lunix Nutcase]

In some states. In other states it's a murkier issue. The only way any worker is going to no for sure is to contest it in court which many of these workers will probably lack the resources to do.

Re:Corporate sociopaths gone berzerk

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer SHOULD be no, but judging by some of the comments in this discussion so far it would not be wise to assume this country isn't dumb enough to let it happen anyway.

Re:Corporate sociopaths gone berzerk

[Anonymous Coward]

In some states. In other states it's a murkier issue. The only way any worker is going to know for sure is to contest it in court which many of these workers will probably lack the resources to do.

FTFY

Re:Corporate sociopaths gone berzerk

[blind biker]

This is the first, and so far only, case of a FTFY that was banally factual and didn't try to push an agenda.

and companies wonder why people go union

[mpicpp]

it seems everyone wants everyone else over a barrel.

Re:and companies wonder why people go union

[The New Guy 2.0]

Yep... this kind of contract could lead to understaffed warehouses... many of Amazon's warehouses are so close to the local UPS/FedEx offices that they share employees frequently.

Re:and companies wonder why people go union

[Lunix Nutcase]

Unfortunately not enough people go union. So many people have bought into the corporate bs about unions (though some of it is the fault of unions and well-deserved) that they actively work against their own interests. Combined with enormous amounts of pro-employer/pro-corporation statutory law and case law basically has created a huge imbalance when it comes to workers' rights.

Re:and companies wonder why people go union

[Anonymous Coward]

Even poor people in the US are convinced that they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires. They listen to low information corporate news that convinces them to continually vote and act against their own interests, because communism or something.

Re:and companies wonder why people go union

[Anonymous Coward]

> (though some of it is the fault of unions and well-deserved)

That's the exact opposite of BS.

Intimidation, not enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of such agreemenst, non-enforceable that they may be, is to intimidate their employees. Sorry Amazon, but I won't be purchasing stuff or employing your servers (AWS) in the future until you decide to stop being such dickheads! FWIW, I was responsible for deploying over 5000 servers in the AWS cloud a couple of years ago. I'll be looking for another cloud provider in the future!

Before we burn them at the stake

[Anonymous Coward]

Has Amazon actually tried to enforce this clause on it's ex-warehouse workers? Somehow I just don't see Amazon spending their money on lawyers to go fight about a minimum wage employee's future employee.

Re:Before we burn them at the stake

[Anonymous Coward]

Has Amazon actually tried to enforce this clause on it's ex-warehouse workers? Somehow I just don't see Amazon spending their money on lawyers to go fight about a minimum wage employee's future employee.

I would say that just including this as an intimidation factor in their contracts should be sufficient reason to start piling up the kindling wood!

Neo-feudalism

[Capt.Albatross]

That one word pretty much sums up the trajectory of business and politics today. And neoserf for its plans for us.
 

Totally unenforcable

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no way that contract could be enforced because Amazon is an online retailer, and working anywhere else that sells anything could be seen as competing with Amazon. Therefore they are basically saying that as our employee you are not allowed to work if you leave this job unless you completely change careers. That contract would get laughed out of court by any reasonable judge.

time for a union the works should strike and it wi

[Anonymous Coward]

time for a union the works should strike and amzon will be in deep to ship anything with no workers other then mangers doing that work.

Why are illegal contracts legal?

[JustinStarren]

Contracts frequently include clauses that are not allowed by law. The simple solution, asking someone to sign a contract that is illegal in the stathe means you cannot do business in that state for one year... That WOULD impact Amazon's bottom line.

Not Enforceable in OK, ND, and CA

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of the three states that say that non-competes are unenforcable, only California will have people sniping warehouse workers from Amazon.

That's ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

this kind of thing should be illegal, these are entry level jobs compensated as such. If that is enforceable, it rules out almost all other entry level jobs (Amazon sells pretty much everything) and thus effectively makes it so no one can leave Amazon. Appauling.

Right to Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing Wisconsin just passed a right to work law. I haven't read the law, but it does mean I can work for whomever I want whenever, right?

Re:Right to Work

[gabrieltss]

No, the new Right To Work bill only applies to workers not having to sign up for unions and not having to pay union dues. Nothing about Non-Competes - all thought they SHOULD have been included. California is the only state I know of for sure that it's against the law to enforce non-competes.

Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the investments Amazon has made in their warehouse - being unlike other warehouses, I can see why they'd want to protect their investment.

Re:Not surprising

[Lunix Nutcase]

Then require them to sign a non-disclosure agreement if it's really about the proprietary knowledge. A non-disclosure agreement in no way necessitates an 18-month non-compete.

This could be interesting.

[Minwee]

Can anyone here name three products which are legal in the USA and do _not_ "[compete] 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)"?

Re:This could be interesting.

[daveywest]

Yes, but all three involve the the sex trade. Wait, dam't. Amazon even has a section for that.

Re:This could be interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Prostitution, illegal recreational drugs, and .... actually I think that's it.

Re:This could be interesting.

[cbhacking]

Many types of sex work, even including outright prostitution, at legal in some if not all of the US. Amazon probably sells pr0n (never checked; who buys that stuff?) but they probably do not sell the services of cam girls. It wouldn't surprise me if they sell stripper poles, but I'm pretty sure you can't order a lapdance from them anywhere.

Re:This could be interesting.

[BarbaraHudson]

haircuts, gasoline, legal representation, prescription drugs (though sellers have been caught illegally selling prescription drugs through Amazon), etc.

Junior lawyer crap

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a lawyer, but I had a long discussion with my lawyer when I was faced with stuff like this in my contracts. Generally if a condition is deemed overly broad which this certainly is, it becomes unenforceable. In addition there is the principle of adhesion which holds that if one party is much more powerful than the other party to a contract, terms and conditions which place the weaker party at a disadvantage are unenforceable.

Junior lawyers tasked with writing things like employment contracts try to stick in language to cover every contingency. They can get in trouble for leaving something out, but they can't get in trouble for unenforceable junk. So you get screwy contracts. In 20+ years as a contractor I don't think I ever had an employment contract that I could sign as received. Working out mutually acceptable language can be a hassle, but I've never had my change requests refused. But you do have to ask.

Robots

[Iamthecheese]

That kind of warehouse workers are replaceable in a second and Amazon knows this. If they have to or want to fire one there's a sheaf of a hundred resumes equally qualified to trudge about scanning items and bringing them to the packing area. It's absolute bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. This is the only reason most amazon warehouses aren't replaced by robots now: humans at slave wages cost less.

source: I once worked in an Amazon warehouse.

Worker Cruelty

[timrod]

What I found most disturbing about the linked article on working conditions in the Amazon warehouses is that they were trying to get the temps to work harder with vague statements about full time employment. I work as a temp, and every single temp agency in existence has a provision in the contract they have with the employers that the employers will not hire the temp for a period (usually six months) after their last paycheck. I'm smart enough to know that anyone who promises me a full time job is lying, but to try and pull the wool over the eyes of these warehouse workers is unforgivable.

Re:Worker Cruelty

[fullmetal55]

I've never worked for the temp agency but a place I worked hired two people on full time from a temp agency. They had to pay out a penalty to the temp agency.

different rules I guess

Epic

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone ought to hit Epic for their non-competes as well.

They are not as broad as this, but they also collude with other companies not to hire each other's employees even if the employees in question aren't under a non-compete.

Though I'm not sure if collusion is the right term since Epic forces the terms on its partners.

Re:Epic

[Lehk228]

if you have evidence of this, report it to the DoJ

Indentured Servitude

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't companies like this just put iron collar rings around their "workers" necks and call this what it is?

It's not enforceable

[daveywest]

My wife's employer is an apartment management company. Their HR director copied all the company policies and procedures manuals, then bailed to start a competing firm. A few months later, the company demanded that all employees sign non-competes as condition of continued employment.

Because she's worked in the company for nearly 15 years, it's unlikely she would find comparable employment in an unrelated field should she decide to leave. We sought the advice of an attorney who offered some great advice. First he said the company would need to undertake legal measures to enforce the non-compete. Theirs did not provide for any penalty against my wife, so even if they were to win in court, there's no consequences, other than her company is out their legal costs.

Secondly, a non-compete cannot be one-sided, or courts will throw them out. People have a right to work that cannot be forfeited or signed away. Her non-compete was overly broad - both in geography and scope. The language disallowed employees to work in any field the company did business in within the state of Nevada or within 100 miles of any site where they operated. Keep in mind they also demanded the maintenance and landscape workers to sign these non-competes. Our attorney counseled us that those provisions alone would likely nullify the entire document in court. It's not reasonable to tell the guy who mows your lawn that he needs to move across the country if he ever wants to work in yard care again.

I suspect Amazon's warehouse workers would fall under the same protections. Nothing about putting product in a cardboard box is proprietary. This is just some idiot middle manager trying to intimidate employees in an effort to reduce turnover.

Re:It's not enforceable

[phorm]

Would that same attorney work for free to help them out when they did quit or move on to a new job? It's not necessarily just the contract that can be costly, but the court time/costs in fighting it.

I don't think it's aimed at real warehouse workers

[Sowelu]

Some of Amazon's facilities have some seriously awesome robots, and their operating practices (while occasionally...horrifying) are still really effective. I suspect that this agreement is actually aimed more at startup wannabes playing at corporate espionage. Which seems really silly...but considering that fast shipping is their lifeblood, if someone who worked for them in a capacity that could play with their warehouse toys started "inventing" new techniques for running a warehouse or building better robots, that could hurt.

Yeah they can't sue warehouse workers because what the hell are they going to get out of it. But they'd love to find ways to sue the next Kiva if they can't buy them.

Yuck!

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon is the Wal-mart of the Internet.

I won't shop at either.

The non-compete would be invalid...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless Amazon gives them something for the non compete then it's invalid since it would be a one sided contract. Not cool!

if only politicians had to sign something similar

[Anonymous Coward]

....or bureaucrats...

I was going to post that this is no big deal...

[kencurry]

Common to most jobs etc., but as a read the attachments to TFA, I do feel that Amazon is really being heavy handed here with PT/Temp employees so shame on them. I buy A LOT of stuff on line, and Amazon, I will think twice before my next purchase from you.

A Final note to the "little guy" whom this may affect: these would be jury trials, and the jury would love to deny these BS antics from Amazon, and reward a counter suit for unfair practices with massive punitive awards. So take heart in that.

Re:I was going to post that this is no big deal...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the jury decides in your favor, maybe it doesn't. The best advice I've ever gotten from a lawyer was "Stay out of court. You never know how that shit will work out: it depends on everything from how stupid any particular juror is to what the judge had for lunch."

Remind me again

[TechNeilogy]

what the "free" in free enterprise is supposed to mean?

Re:Remind me again

[radarskiy]

Capital is free to do whatever it likes. Labor is free to go fuck itself.

Re:Remind me again

[TechNeilogy]

I believe in the right of people to form contracts, even for employers to require contractual conditions for employment. But it has to be balanced against the relative economic power of the two parties.

It's like saying a match between a pee-wee league football team and an NFL team is fair because both parties are governed by the same rules. “Fair” is only a correct assessment if you ignore the most important facts about the situation.

If a bazillion dollar company wants to require minimum wage, near-zero net-worth, workers to wear certain clothes, work specific hours, not moonlight (if employed full time), not be allowed to abscond with company secrets, etc., I have absolutely no problem with that. But if that same company wants to dictate that those employees will be bound, to their economic detriment, even after they are no longer being paid, from taking the type of jobs that they are trained for and that are commonly available to them, that seems inequitable.

After all, even if the cost of that employee going to a competitor is many times the hourly value of that employee, that still implies less harm to the mega corporation than hindering the future employment of that person.

And I should state that I am not an Amazon-hater; I am a loyal customer since the days when they started out just selling a few books on-line. I remember what it was like (not living in a big city) to try to buy uncommon or technical books before Amazon -- in a word, it sucked. But big companies just need to remember that a large part of what made them into a bazillion dollar companies was all those people depending on those commonly available jobs for money -- sometimes a significant fraction of their small income -- to buy the books, music, etc.

Not just for warehouse workers

[Anonymous Coward]

I interned at Amazon last summer as a Software Developer Engineer Intern and that exact clause was in my contract as well. It's pretty meaningless.

I thought they didn't work for Amazon

[Catbeller]

Those warehouse workers work for employment contractors, not for Amazon. Our employment law is so destroyed that Amazon, indeed, any corporation, can treat you both as an employee of theirs and an employee of someone else. They aren't even pretending anymore - they do what they like.

In the future?

[Anonymous Coward]

...or otherwise provided by Amazon (or intended to be sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon in the future)

So Amazon's slave labor has to be clairvoyant as well as being forced to sign an illegal and evil contract?

I've just decided to stop buying from that batshit insane company. Thank you, slashdot, for bringing this to my attention.

Pull the ladder up

[AndyKron]

Nothing like pulling the ladder up after their worthless fucking selves.

Scare Tactic

[Kreegalor]

Its a scare tactic to keep the ignorant workers in line. First time I encountered a non-compete (as a factory assembler putting screws in a sheet metal box) I was convinced I was going to be stuck working for these guys forever. So did most of the other people on the floor. I mentioned something to my neighbor, showed him a copy of the Non-Com. He told me what every one else is saying here, it was almost impossible to enforce (in the state I was in at the time) and that there were no penalties and the onus was on the company to do something about it. Of course, I made sure to let all the people on the floor know that information too. After I moved up the ladder to a more technical job there and took a job at a competing company, I got a letter from my old company telling me I was in violation of the Non-Com. My lawyer sent them a letter saying to fuck themselves and that was the end of it.

utill Re:Good Luck

[mjwalshe]

Some one like amazon ties to go to far and the feds/supreames step in

Libertarian America

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Libertarian America for you!

These are also the people who are upset about Jeremy Clarkson being fired for assaulting a fellow employee, they seem to think money grants the privileged to assault your coworkers and keep your job.

But it gets better than that: when you start digging deeply enough into Libertarian mentality, they are pro-slavery.

And not only are they Pro-Slavery, but they are also of the mindset that slaves are slaves by choice. Yup you heard it, slaves choose to be slaves. Even though the choice is to work as a slave or be tortured and killed, they still have a choice.

So that's the kind of psychopath you're dealing with.

Come See The Mighty Amazon In Full Retreat!

[westlake]

Well, that didn't take long:

Amazon is to remove a ''non-compete'' clause from its employment contracts for US workers paid by the hour after criticism that it is unreasonable to prevent such employees from finding other work.
A company spokeswoman confirmed to the Guardian that the clause would be cut.
''That clause hasn't been applied to hourly associates, and we're removing it,' 'she said.
The company would not disclose the breakdown of its staff by geography or hourly pay and salary. No UK employment contracts for hourly workers contained such non-compete clauses.

Amazon further required laid-off employees to reaffirm their non-compete contracts in order to receive severance, reported the Verge.

Amazon to remove non-compete clause from contracts for hourly workers

Re:Come See The Mighty Amazon In Full Retreat!

[TechNeilogy]

I think this is good, even if they did it under pressure. Doing the right thing so quickly, even in response to a nudge, is a hopeful sign.

Please keep in mind

[bferrell]

Amazon doesn't actually employ the folks in the fulfillment centers...

So, if sued, they aren't going up against Amazon itself, but a company that contracts to Amazon. A small distinction, to be sure, but important.... They have far fewer resources and are MUCH more vulnerable to employment rights lawyers.

Uline does too

[gabrieltss]

Amazon built a new BIG distribution center just up I94 here in southern Wisconsin from where Uline has their corporate headquarters and many warehouses and distribution centers. And Uline makes you sign non-competes as well for ALL their positions. Their's though are for 12 months not 18. I know - I had to sign one....

"Right to work" beats No Compete in court

[Anonymous Coward]

In a "right to work" U.S. State (iirc most are) they can't do it IF it affects you functioning on the work you do for a living.

* I know it holds true for computing professionals & other skilled trades (not sure about warehouse work/labor though, but, the argument COULD be made for it I'd think @ least - even warehousemen have skills, like forklift driving (I grew up with guys who worked as union men that way for example)).

APK

P.S.=> Just some "FYI" if "the man" tries to "lawyer you down" & all the "they are SO BIG they will crush you in court" isn't true when YOU have truth & actual law working FOR you - in case ANYONE here didn't note it already (haven't read thru all the replies here yet)... apk

Get Hired at Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

Never work anywhere else again.

To bad

[Anonymous Coward]

To bad it is not worth the paper it is written on in Arizona where one of their main warehouses is located.

Non-Competes are evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-Competes are mostly used to intimidate employees, and limit their ability to negotiate for more money. How does this work? (West coast state, where Non-Completes are allowed) Me: "Hey I found a new job that will pay me more money, will you match their offer?" Them: "No, and if you go to work for them, we'll sue you. Because Non-Compete." Me: "No way, I heard that you can't enforce these things, so I'm leaving anyways" Them: "Well, we just sent your new employer a cease and desist letter, so won't hire you now." (Yup!) But what really sucks is when your employer self-implodes, and you are left with angry clients and no future. Then you will *really* regret signing that non-compete. (Yup) My personal recommendation is to deal with the Non-Compete up front, I recently requested the removal of a non-compete from my new employer, they complained about it for a day, but in the end relented. Although, I must admit that I was in a strong negotiating position to walk away if they didn't agree to my terms. This is why Non-Compete should be outlawed (as in California), they are widely abused in the industry, and many people are powerless to stop them up front.

I love the EU for making non-competes illegal

[popoutman]

Here in the EU, if there are terms in an employment contract that effectively mean a non-compete for X length of time after leaving that employment, they are completely unenforceable once the employment contract is terminated. The key terms are "contract" and "terminated". The contract no longer exists legally once the employment is terminated.

If a company wants non-compete methods, then they have to request that the newly-ex-employee sign a new contract to not compete with the previous employer's competitors, and in every case that I have heard of, the monetary terms for that non-compete had to be very very generous in order for the newly available employee to not work for the next 6 to 18 months in the business. Some in this situation went on training courses to stay current, others branched out into differing areas of work, all while getting handsomely paid not to work for the competitor.

Amazon have their head up their ass regarding the treatment of their employees for a long time in the US, and it'll come back to bite them. At least in the EU the employee protection legislation prevent such entities from taking that level of advantage of their employees. I'll be glad if/when karma comes back to burn Bezos and gang over their unethical actions and general mistreatment of their staff.

Re:I love the EU for making non-competes illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

To be even more specific, in the UK they would throw that clause out of court.

It is wholly unenforceable, it is known to be wholly unenforceable, no lawyer would take this to court unless they were instructed by the client.

I asked some lawyer friends and they smiled and said that loads of companies try it, it will only work if you can basically tell them that they are paid for that length of time they are not working, aka gardening leave.

Its a breach of the employees right to work. There are rules about IPR and using elsewhere but its really difficult to enforce not working for somebody else if your contract is completed.

The more I know about Amazon the more I think what a bunch of utter shits they are.

Inevitable disclosure

[tepples]

Non-compete agreements used for their non-disclosure properties are used to prevent accidental disclosure.

Starting a family in the first place

[tepples]

In theory, people also have the choice to live single instead of starting a family in the first place.

Protect the system

[Anonymous Coward]

The clause isn't really intended to stop someone from taking an hourly wage doing warehouse work at a competitor if they found themselves out of work after being released from Amazon. It is probably intended in part to discourage workers from being directly poached by competitors, but it's unlikely Amazon would bother trying to enforce it for such things.

Amazon, as much as anything, is a shipping and receiving logistics company. The system and method they use are some of their most valuable assets. The clause is intended to prevent a smart warehouse worker going to a competitor and taking a high level position helping them replicate Amazon's system by using his insider knowledge. This is the main area of concern for Amazon. Sure, a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement should also cover that aspect, but the non-compete can help strengthen this and make it less likely to happen.

I pledge allegiance to Jehovah God

[tepples]

How about Pledge of Allegiance — is that a "cohesive contract"

Members of some religious groups handle this by not saying the Pledge at all. They pledge allegiance only to god, or they say a parody pledge referencing a pyrotechnic accident in 1984:

I pledge allegiance to the flag,
Michael Jackson makes me gag.
Pepsi-Cola burned him up,
Now he's selling 7 UP.

Not inherited

[tepples]

As long as plantation owners are not a position to /force/ anyone to become slaves

Modern pseudo-slavery differs from slavery in the first half of the nineteenth century in one important way: the child of two wage slaves is not a slave to either of his parents' employers.

Re:Not inherited

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern pseudo-slavery differs from slavery in the first half of the nineteenth century in one important way: the child of two wage slaves is not a slave to either of his parents' employers.

At least not yet, anyway. Not yet. I wouldn't be surprised if their team of lawyers is already trying to capture that loose end.

It's Okay

[Anonymous Coward]

Weyland-Yutani's due to rise up and overtake pretty much everything within a few decades anyway.

The article about the appalling working conditions is just a really, really long story about the heat. It hardly covers anything else, and I've seen people who at least say they are/have been Amazon employees report all kinds of other crap. 15 minute break, right? Well it takes 5 to walk to the break room, 5 to walk back, so they had a 5-minute break. Technically kosher, but it isn't good for employee morale. The right thing to do would be to install more designated break areas, so it's say a 1-2 minute walk instead.

I've worked in a warehouse. Family Dollar, to be specific. The heat there got crazy too, but heat incidents were few and far between. We had louvers, humongous exhaust fans to pull air in through the louvers, cattle fans everywhere, comically large ceiling fans over the receiving area, and even the answer to Amazon's big worry about theft via the dock doors: Use a security fence. There were certain dock doors which had a surround around them, with a mesh of chains forming a fence. The two halves would be brought closed and locked together, and then the door provided plenty of breeze. For getting drinks and taking a leak, even though there were productivity requirements, you just figured it up when you reported your downtime, which worked for you.

Really?

[eWarz]

Second? is there anyone here who DOESN'T use newegg just to configure the initial build, only to switch to amazon (with it's lower prices) to complete the purchase? Just sayin...Newegg was cheaper...in the early 2000s. Amazon actually rules the roost now, even though it's website blows balls (newegg isn't doing so hot these days either, with it's downgrade in UI experience.)

Re:Really?

[Mal-2]

I don't window-shop Newegg to buy from Amazon. I use Amazon to sanity-check Newegg's prices, true, but Newegg doesn't have to be the absolute cheapest option. (There is quite a bit of stuff Newegg simply doesn't have, though.)

Of course, it helps that I live less than thirty miles from two Newegg warehouses, and stuff I order usually shows up in two days (and without having the crap beaten out of it as sometimes happens with cross-country shipments).

Re:Really?

[Rick Zeman]

Second? is there anyone here who DOESN'T use newegg just to configure the initial build, only to switch to amazon (with it's lower prices) to complete the purchase? Just sayin...Newegg was cheaper...in the early 2000s. Amazon actually rules the roost now, even though it's website blows balls (newegg isn't doing so hot these days either, with it's downgrade in UI experience.)

I guess the word "historically" has no special meaning to you?

Anything's enforceable

[rsilvergun]

when you're a large mega corp with lawyers on retainer and your ex-employee was making $12/hr (if they're lucky) and living out of their RV. See, once you start eroding workers rights it's all downhill from there.

Companies don't wonder

[rsilvergun]

they know, and they don't want you to for just that reason.

Not in California

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because a contracy says "something" doesn't mean it's enforeceable.

IANAL but i can say with 100% confidence that this is not enforceable in the great state of California.

Over 25 years of contracting in CA I've had a few IT brokers try to give me grief about violating some non-compete or non-solicitation clause in a contract I had signed. I told them, "Sorry I'm not a lawyer, but I have one on retainer, let me give you his contact info, ready ?". That was the end of the story.

l

Wow

[Greyfox]

They demand a lot of loyalty from people they'd cut up and sell for organs if they thought it would be profitable. I'm actually mildly surprised Amazon hasn't tried this yet. Like if you get killed in the warehouse Amazon gets dibbs on your organs kinda clause.

Re: Where is this law in effect? South Africa

[Anonymous Coward]

In South Africa a non-compete is only enforceable is the contract is fair: if you get reasonable compensation during the period then it is feasibility, e.g. When Knott Craig leeft Vodafone (Vodacom) he was paid ~$1m for the year.

In my case, my US employee paid me nothing to compensate for the non-compete period, so it is not. enforceable.

Open and shut.

Why corporations are better than governments

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations are better than governments, because if you don't like what the corporation does, you can go elsewhere, whereas you can't, um, leave the country? change the government? Uh, well, you can't do the same exact thing with government, so their incompetence is worse than corporate incompetence!

What's that? A non-compete agreement? Ah. Well, I guess you can still get unemployment benefit to pay for food and bills if you refuse to work there any more, right? No? So the choice is "put up with it or die in the streets"?

NO MATTER! Corporate malice or incompetence is not a problem because you can decide not to give them your money!!!

What? Walmart is the only place I can afford to buy food at? And that Nestle bought up forty companies and kept their name so I can't tell what Nestle owns and not give them my money?

NO MATTER! GOVERNMENT BAD, PRIVATE INDUSTRY GOOD!!!!!!!!

Geographically limited

[Anonymous Coward]

Every non-compete has a geographic limitation. Often that is 50 miles around the current place of employment.

Move.

That solves this if you are high enough up for the old company to care.
I've lived in 9 different states and 11 different cities. Change is good, plus you can loose girlfriends and parts of the family you don't want anymore.

Fair enough, if...

[scottme]

I can't take any job involving "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)" then I'm absolutely going to need Amazon to keep me fully informed about all their future plans throughout my employment with Amazon.

This would be purely so I can be sure I won't inadvertently engage in any subsequent activity that would fall foul of that non-compete clause.

Heh heh.

List of banned jobs.

[SharpFang]

"As a current employee of Amazon and looking for a different work, with reference to Non-Compete document# xxx I have signed, I am requesting a comprehensive list of jobs and domains which I'm forbidden to participate in. Currently my job as a janitor of warehouse X leaves me with very little to no knowledge of what products or services are in development, manufacture, marketing, sale , offered or otherwise provided by Amazonof any product or service that competes or is intended to compete with any product or service sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon, and especially the ones it intends any of the above in the future. Since I must know if I'm allowed to perform any of jobs there are openings for, I require this information, so that I don't violate my Non-Compete."

"Please deliver the printed list to my house at [...], as I'm unable to rent a truck to take it home from work."

Hard working conditions?

[Sumtingwong]

I have a great job for all these people: they get free healthcare, free dental, housing and will even get promoted the first few times based on time served. Who knew the military was so good? As for the working conditions, though, at least these guys have a roof over their heads.

Excuses

[ToddInSF]

But you'll still buy crap off Amazon.

Ah Amazon...

[iq145]

The new evil of the corporate world (second only to Walmart)...

"(or intended to be sold, offered..."

[Anonymous Coward]

The final sub-clause "(or intended to be sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon in the future)" strictly means that the signatory is prohibited in advance from doing something to be defined in the future by Amazon, and implies that an act defined by Amazon in the future will have the retroactive effect of putting the signatory in breach.

This is probably unenforceable anywhere in the civilised world.