Amazon Workers Must Sign 18-Month Non-Compete Agreements

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I can see requiring a non-compete agreement for corporate executives, engineers or people with access to trade secrets...but warehouse workers?

The job doesn’t pay very much and is grueling, and also has high turnover. Oh, and employees are asked to sign 18-month non-compete contracts that ban them from working for any competitor of Amazon.
Click to expand...
 
Every company that sells goods or certain services competes with Amazon in some capacity...

Would Amazon really go to the expense of monitoring low level employees that have quit and sue them?
 
That would be a slam dunk loss for Amazon in any US jurisdiction, and they would get to pay attorneys' fees for the former employee.
 
It's purely a scare tactic to keep workers from quitting for better pay or conditions. Non-competes are almost 100% thrown out as invalid. You can't tell someone they aren't allowed to work for someone else, just because it's in a similar industry or a competing company. If a company is worried someone will leave to a competitor, then they need to offer competitive compensation and working conditions. It's that simple. I think these non-compete agreements should be made illegal from the get go. Meaning, any company that even asks an employee to sign one will be fined for it, regardless if they intend to enforce it or not.
 
This effectively reduces your employability and thus binds you tighter to Amazon. I shop at Amazon but I object to this.
Huh, I wonder what any given states department of unemployment would say about someone collecting UI and not seeking a warehouse gig at an Amazon competitor.
Someone with connections to the legal world, who works at Amazon, might force this issue.
Maybe if this story gets lots of eyeballs, Amazon will reconsider this policy. I doubt it came from the very top.
 
I think every company works a non compete agreement into their contract, its one of those things lawyers rubber stamp into every contract. 1 it might not even be legally enforceable, 2 its probably never actually enforced by the company, 3 it cant be worth anyones time.

Personally IMO non competes should just be illegal. There should be other means for prosecuting companies that use other companies inside information that are independent of going after the employee. No one should be forced to switch careers or sit on the sidelines. Especially in modern times when almost all valuable employees are specialized in one way or another which heavily limits what jobs they can get. When you worked half your life to become a good at something its kinda of bullshit to tell a person well you cant do that any more for X years.
 
illram said:
Non competes are illegal in California.
Click to expand...

Amazingly many companies in california do not know this. Previous company and current company I work for didn't. I actually told them of this when we we're completing my paperwork and they we're surprised. They still wanted me to sign and I was forced to tell them I would file a complaint if they asked me again.
 
illram said:
Non competes are illegal in California.
Click to expand...
Was just going to point that out. It's not illegal, but is unenforceable for employees who sign since it's assumed that a worker has a right to work in his or her field.

There are certain non-competes which are enforceable in CA, such as a condition of sale in which a new owner which may limit access to former customers, distance of new business from old one in the same line and/or period of time before the former owner can resume in the same line of business.
 
pxc said:
Was just going to point that out. It's not illegal, but is unenforceable for employees who sign since it's assumed that a worker has a right to work in his or her field.

There are certain non-competes which are enforceable in CA, such as a condition of sale in which a new owner which may limit access to former customers, distance of new business from old one in the same line and/or period of time before the former owner can resume in the same line of business.
Click to expand...

Actually the CA state supreme court has ruled that non-competes are illegal: http://www.workforce.com/articles/non-compete-agreements-going-going-gone
 
Teenk9 said:
Amazingly many companies in california do not know this. Previous company and current company I work for didn't. I actually told them of this when we we're completing my paperwork and they we're surprised. They still wanted me to sign and I was forced to tell them I would file a complaint if they asked me again.
Click to expand...
California also demands employers can't require equipment for employees that they don't provide or provide payment for crazy huh.
 
Teenk9 said:
Actually the CA state supreme court has ruled that non-competes are illegal: http://www.workforce.com/articles/non-compete-agreements-going-going-gone
Click to expand...
No, they didn't. :p Arguments from the lower court did get into some issues of whether it was illegal or not, based on creative analysis of precedent. From the actual state Supreme Court ruling, non-compete rulings for employees were ruled invalid:

DISPOSITION
We hold that the noncompetition agreement here is invalid under section
16600, and we reject the narrow-restraint exception urged by Andersen.
Noncompetition agreements are invalid under section 16600 in California even if
narrowly drawn, unless they fall within the applicable statutory exceptions of
sections 16601, 16602, or 16602.5. In addition, we conclude that the TONC at
issue in this case did not purport to release Andersen from any nonwaivable
statutory claims and therefore is not unlawful under Labor Code sections 2802 and
2804.

We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the Court of Appeal
judgment, and remand the matter for proceedings consistent with the views
expressed above.
Click to expand...

Other than summarizing arguments from the lower court, the word "illegal" is used once in the decision, and quotes are included around it. IOW, no one is facing fines or jail time for asking an employee to sign a non-compete. It will simply be invalid and unenforceable.
 
*... non-compete agreements for employees were ruled invalid:
 
"In a unanimous decision, the justices said state law since 1872 has forbidden so-called noncompete clauses that restrict management employees' options in their next job or business.”

So if it's forbidden by law, how would it be not illegal?
 
rudy said:
I think every company works a non compete agreement into their contract, its one of those things lawyers rubber stamp into every contract. 1 it might not even be legally enforceable, 2 its probably never actually enforced by the company, 3 it cant be worth anyones time.

Personally IMO non competes should just be illegal. There should be other means for prosecuting companies that use other companies inside information that are independent of going after the employee. No one should be forced to switch careers or sit on the sidelines. Especially in modern times when almost all valuable employees are specialized in one way or another which heavily limits what jobs they can get. When you worked half your life to become a good at something its kinda of bullshit to tell a person well you cant do that any more for X years.
Click to expand...

I would also add that companies think of their employees as assets, I don't think its wrong at all to treat a company just as they treat me.

I once was a contractor that worked at Target, there were layoff (years ago)... contract company said they let me go by mistake... I worked for them for 2 weeks, contacted and interviewed with another contract company and left. They were pretty upset that I would just leave with hardly any notice, and I just told them that is what they did to me just 3 weeks ago so why should I even care.
 
i960 said:
It's purely a scare tactic to keep workers from quitting for better pay or conditions. Non-competes are almost 100% thrown out as invalid. You can't tell someone they aren't allowed to work for someone else, just because it's in a similar industry or a competing company. If a company is worried someone will leave to a competitor, then they need to offer competitive compensation and working conditions. It's that simple. I think these non-compete agreements should be made illegal from the get go. Meaning, any company that even asks an employee to sign one will be fined for it, regardless if they intend to enforce it or not.
Click to expand...

They're quite enforcable in most states if they're properly written. They have to be somewhat narrowly defined, can't be for an unreasonable time frame, and can't be for an unreasonable market size. I can't see Amazon holding on to one for a low level employee under any circumstances, but for companies that invest a lot in training employees taking that training and business process to competitors is a serious risk. So they have to pay well and train well enough to make someone willing to sign one.
 
Teenk9 said:
"In a unanimous decision, the justices said state law since 1872 has forbidden so-called noncompete clauses that restrict management employees' options in their next job or business.”

So if it's forbidden by law, how would it be not illegal?
Click to expand...
There's a difference between illegal and invalid, even though some (non-legal) people use those two interchangeably. There are laws which remain in the code which have been found to be invalid in later challenges or other decisions, which doesn't necessarily imply that there's anything "illegal" about it.

There is a case to make that the broad "unlawful" could apply, which has "illegal" as a synonym. Specifically, in the text I quoted above, the author of decision decided "invalid" was the best way to describe it. The decision CA's Supreme Court made was on the enforceability of those agreements. Absolutely nothing in the decision concerned whether an employer could ask an employee to sign one since it would be moot anyways in CA.
 
pxc said:
*... non-compete agreements for employees were ruled invalid:
Click to expand...
only real difference between illegal and invalid is that illegal means a company can get into trouble for asking employees to sign them, and invalid means if the employee does go into the same type of work if the company tries to sue then the company is going to lose.

Although I will say a few companies did get into a bit of hot water because they had backroom deals on not poaching or hiring employees of each other. Which is itself illegal to do.
 
Oldie said:
They're quite enforcable in most states if they're properly written. They have to be somewhat narrowly defined, can't be for an unreasonable time frame, and can't be for an unreasonable market size. I can't see Amazon holding on to one for a low level employee under any circumstances, but for companies that invest a lot in training employees taking that training and business process to competitors is a serious risk. So they have to pay well and train well enough to make someone willing to sign one.
Click to expand...

Whats reasonable if your looking for a job? The company I work for is 3 years up from 2. Are you supposed to work as a wal-mart greeter or starve while your waiting for your non compete to end? Seriously they hired somebody from a different company that had non competes and complained about it. I was like you have the same thing. :p
 
Semantics said:
California also demands employers can't require equipment for employees that they don't provide or provide payment for crazy huh.
Click to expand...

This is another one I have no problem with. If you are familiar with Asia it is absolutely mind boggling the shit that will go on over there. Companies will force a person to wear a specific uniform to work. And oh BTW you have to buy that uniform. And that uniform costs as much as you make in a month and can only be acquired directly from the company itself so they garnish your wages for months, oh and rofl you know of course if you quit you have to return the uniform. A lot of Asian run restaurants in the USA do similarly bull shit stuff to their employees. Mostly because their employees don't know any better and many times are illegal or maybe not illegal but aren't supposed to be working. Screwing over employees on tips, and making them pay for broken machines by garnishing their wages, and same with uniforms etc.... I can understand a company requiring a uniform and IMO they should provide at least 2 of these uniforms, I also don't have a problem with them asking you to pay if you want to have extra, IE you want to load up on 10 uniforms so you don't have to wash laundry for 2 weeks. The grew area in the USA gets to be when there is a dress code but not exactly a uniform. Where they say stuff like you need certain colored clothes and styles. I still think in these cases they should be forced to provide something if the employee wishes. I remember my sister buying a bunch of clothes for a temporary job and I was like why would you waste the money are you even going to make any money when its all said and done? Anyhow companies love this shit because it forces employees to be loyal to some degree because once they are invested in the company its hard to break free when so many other companies do similar shit.
 
Oldie said:
They're quite enforcable in most states if they're properly written. They have to be somewhat narrowly defined, can't be for an unreasonable time frame, and can't be for an unreasonable market size. I can't see Amazon holding on to one for a low level employee under any circumstances, but for companies that invest a lot in training employees taking that training and business process to competitors is a serious risk. So they have to pay well and train well enough to make someone willing to sign one.
Click to expand...

Ya or maybe once someone completes this amazing training how about you pay them enough that they wont have a reason to leave. Then this forces the competitor to consider the reality that if they want to steal that employee it might be cheaper just to train their own new employee. I highly doubt these amazon employees are thinking wow the pay is great here I could definitely live for 18 months without pay. The reality is when almost every company is working these bull shit non competes into every employees contract you don't really have a choice do you? This whole they are paying you more thing doesn't really hold up till we get to like executive levels.
 
To my knowledge, non-compete's are hard to enforce. For one, such a position would be hard for Amazon to prove that this employee caused harm to Amazon (ie: trade secrets, etc). The employee is entitled to earn their livelihood from their trade.

It's not like Amazon put them through Warehouse University.
 
i960 said:
It's purely a scare tactic to keep workers from quitting for better pay or conditions. Non-competes are almost 100% thrown out as invalid. You can't tell someone they aren't allowed to work for someone else, just because it's in a similar industry or a competing company. If a company is worried someone will leave to a competitor, then they need to offer competitive compensation and working conditions. It's that simple. I think these non-compete agreements should be made illegal from the get go. Meaning, any company that even asks an employee to sign one will be fined for it, regardless if they intend to enforce it or not.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.
 
Teenk9 said:
Amazingly many companies in california do not know this. Previous company and current company I work for didn't. I actually told them of this when we we're completing my paperwork and they we're surprised. They still wanted me to sign and I was forced to tell them I would file a complaint if they asked me again.
Click to expand...

That is applaudable what you did. Respect for courage to point out and stand up to something that is blatantly against the law. There need to be more people like this.
 
Spidey329 said:
To my knowledge, non-compete's are hard to enforce. For one, such a position would be hard for Amazon to prove that this employee caused harm to Amazon (ie: trade secrets, etc). The employee is entitled to earn their livelihood from their trade.
Click to expand...

Yea it would be impossible to proven. I can see non-compete if as story said, exec's, researchers, someone with access to corp secrets,m research and such. But person that works in warehouse filling orders this is just completely bs. Keeping a person that compared to others like exec's and researchers that can make a ton, but to keep a middle class person outta work for that long will put them in the streets.
 
illram said:
Non competes are illegal in California.
Click to expand...

Yet they still have much of their intended effect.

I lost out on a job, even though the hiring company agreed that the non-compete clause was not enforceable in California. They just didn't want to take the chance that the idiot owner of the company I was working for would end up suing them, and then they would have the expense/trouble dealing with him.
 
Teenk9 said:
Amazingly many companies in california do not know this. Previous company and current company I work for didn't. I actually told them of this when we we're completing my paperwork and they we're surprised. They still wanted me to sign and I was forced to tell them I would file a complaint if they asked me again.
Click to expand...

As much as I hate more laws, they need to put penalties and/or fines in place for companies that use these non-compete clauses. A nice $1000 fine for each violation paid to the employee is the only way they will ever go away.
 
I have never heard a lawyer seriously quibble about the difference between "illegal" or "unlawful." Unless we are talking about "illegal immigrants" vs. undocumented immigrants. In civil litigation, if you say "x broke the law by doing so and so, that is illegal," no one would seriously bat an eye.

Non competes in CA are "illegal" or "invalid" or "void" or "unlawful," whatever you want to call it. And it's not just unenforceable, you can sue a business who fires you because a prior employer claims you violated their "non-compete," or who refuses to hire you because you would not sign a non-compete, etc.
 
I hate the lack of edit in this subforum. Wanted to add:

nutzo said:
Yet they still have much of their intended effect.

I lost out on a job, even though the hiring company agreed that the non-compete clause was not enforceable in California. They just didn't want to take the chance that the idiot owner of the company I was working for would end up suing them, and then they would have the expense/trouble dealing with him.
Click to expand...

Yes this is sadly true, I see it frequently.
 
Semantics said:
California also demands employers can't require equipment for employees that they don't provide or provide payment for crazy huh.
Click to expand...

Wait.... so they can't ask you to have a car, in case you need to move back and forth between 2 buildings?
 
Company I interned for tried to sue Boeing over a non-compete and an employee working with Geonames projects. They lost, obviously. Then, when I went to work for Boeing as a contractor a few months later I got to hear all about it.

http://www.geographic-services.net/

Assholes made me sign a non-compete as an intern that wasn't ever going to be offered a full time position.
 
dandirk said:
I would also add that companies think of their employees as assets, I don't think its wrong at all to treat a company just as they treat me.

I once was a contractor that worked at Target, there were layoff (years ago)... contract company said they let me go by mistake... I worked for them for 2 weeks, contacted and interviewed with another contract company and left. They were pretty upset that I would just leave with hardly any notice, and I just told them that is what they did to me just 3 weeks ago so why should I even care.
Click to expand...

Totally this. Companies consider you a resource - a human resource. They are an employment resource to me, nothing more. As long as I can be let go for any reason without any warning, they will receive the same (unless it's advantageous to me to use them for references in the future. If I've already secure employment elsewhere, sayonara bitches - 0-day notice :))

As soon as they guarantee a 2 warning or pay me 2 weeks after letting me go without prior warning, I will reciprocate.
 
Arbit3r said:
Yea it would be impossible to proven. I can see non-compete if as story said, exec's, researchers, someone with access to corp secrets,m research and such. But person that works in warehouse filling orders this is just completely bs. Keeping a person that compared to others like exec's and researchers that can make a ton, but to keep a middle class person outta work for that long will put them in the streets.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this either. A specialized executive or researcher has even less options. The amazon warehouse employee can take his skills of moving things around to a fairly unrelated industry. Today you pack boxes for amazon tomorrow you do it for an auto parts supplier. Execs and researchers aren't so lucky. If you are a mobile phone engineer then switching to an unrelated field is likely to be a major knock in pay. On top of that any move at all is almost certainly going to cause you to have to change locations. When an exec or researcher goes to another company they are not allowed to give away anything that was at the other company. If a company thinks this is happening then they should sue them or the company for the act of stealing information not just because they are working for the other guy. There was an example of this a couple years ago where some intel or amd engineers switched teams and took company secrets and then were prosecuted. I am ok with that. But I am not OK with intel telling them you just cant work for AMD ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top