Slashdot Mirror
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)."
That's a pretty broad exclusion to be enforceable.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Overly broad non-competes are almost universally unenforceable. The lawyers writing this non-sense know this.
Scott
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.
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
for every single case where Amazon tries to enforce this against a warehouse worker. This is absolutely f***ing disgusting.
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.
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.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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.
Can't have those robots leave and take their AI to the competition.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
This is not enforceable even in the US... right?
RIGHT??
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
it seems everyone wants everyone else over a barrel.
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.
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
That one word pretty much sums up the trajectory of business and politics today. And neoserf for its plans for us.
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.
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)"?
But they are provided compensation! Certainly enough, that they consider it acceptable to work for Amazon knowing about the restriction.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
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.
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.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
what the "free" in free enterprise is supposed to mean?
"The wisdom of the Patriarchs was that they *knew* they were fools." --Master Foo
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.
Nothing like pulling the ladder up after their worthless fucking selves.
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.
Some one like amazon ties to go to far and the feds/supreames step in
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
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.
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?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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....
The Truth is a Virus!!!
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.
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.
- This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
Non-compete agreements used for their non-disclosure properties are used to prevent accidental disclosure.
In theory, people also have the choice to live single instead of starting a family in the first place.
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:
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.
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.)
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
they know, and they don't want you to for just that reason.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
"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."
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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.
Word!
But you'll still buy crap off Amazon.
>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;
Wind Beneath Thy Wings
The new evil of the corporate world (second only to Walmart)...