Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Requires Non-Compete Agreements.. For Warehouse Workers

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-may-not-lift-and-carry-objects-for-anyone-else dept.

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)."

14 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. Good Luck by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's a pretty broad exclusion to be enforceable.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Good Luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    2. Re:Good Luck by TWX · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Good Luck by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Good Luck by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Good Luck by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    6. Re:Good Luck by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re:Good Luck by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Good Luck by queequeg1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    9. Re:Good Luck by MrL0G1C · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  2. Adopt the German Rules by purpledinoz · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:I suggest a million dollar fine by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:and companies wonder why people go union by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  5. Come See The Mighty Amazon In Full Retreat! by westlake · · Score: 4, Informative
    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