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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you forget your sarcasm tag?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And they know it's bullshit. They also know most workers are going to be too timid to fight it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.