Ugh, this garbage again. AWS came after someone I had hired trying to enforce the same non-compete, under more or less the same circumstances (Washington-based employee, working remote out of California). In the process I learned a bunch about this non-compete, and in particular about Amazon's behavior with respect to it: as of 2012, they had tried to enforce this non-compete "hundreds" of times -- and to the knowledge of the outside counsel we used, had never prevailed. (It's used as a tactic to terrorize their own employees -- and it works wonders.)
As for us, we responded to their nasty letter with a nastier letter that told them that we didn't view the employee in violation, that the non-compete was absolutely unenforceable in California and essentially unenforceable in Washington -- and that we were prepared to draw pistols at dawn over it. That was more or less the end of it, but it was traumatizing to the ex-AWS employee, turning an otherwise amicable separation venomous; it's despicable, cowardly behavior.
(Also, if anyone needs counsel on the ground in King County to fight this, I have a great recommendation for you; DMs open.)
It's quite an interesting strategy and for all Amazon's "long-termism", it's a strategy that seems quite short-term focused.
It may make their current employees decide not to leave, but it may also lower morale and make future recruits not join.
Talk to decision makers deciding which database to buy and see their thoughts about Oracle. Many have been around for decades and have worked for or with the company and refuse to buy their products. This feels like a great way to cement your company as a new Oracle.
Your short-sighted mean-spirited moves helped inspire your most dangerous competitor[1].
From Jack Welch - "I have a phrase: love them on the way out — I teach this to my school — love ’em on the way out the way you love them on the way in. And I’ll tell you another one: a severance dollar is the cheapest dollar you’ll ever spend. Those two things, if you practice that religiously, you’ll stay out of trouble, you’ll be perceived as fair. Maybe not loved, initially, but people will come to respect you. That’s why I have an army of friends. Many people who I let go are some of my closest friends."
Amazon's non-compete was the deciding factor for me not to join the company.
I went through all steps of the recruitment process, but bailed out after receiving the offer. I've had a chat with the hiring contact and I did tell them that I was concerned about the NCA, but they simply waived those away telling me "it's not a big deal". Funnily, even though they were asking if they could change something in the offer to convince me to join, the NCA was something that they wouldn't budge on.
Since me joining Amazon meant moving all the way from Europe, I was really uncomfortable with the prospect of potentially being stuck at Amazon because of that NCA, so I wished them luck and rejected the offer.
> Amazon's non-compete was the deciding factor for me not to join the company.
i would ask for, in advance of signing the non-compete (that lasts for X years) the equivalent of X year's of salary. I'm sure there's room to negotiate this so that the company has to pay out the approximate cost of a non-compete.
that's the way the law works in France. That's why I always receive a nice letter at the end of my contract: "we hereby release you from your non-compete agreement".
Basically you have to write everything about the end of the employment in the employment contract, otherwise you'll get shafted.
In France you do not have to write it, the law regulates this anyway. If you have a non compete, you have compensation.
The good thing with contracts on France (and when buying a house) is that everything is regulated and there is actually little space for any enforceable changes.
Granted, much smaller company. But after I got an offer I was given a ton of unusual documents to sign. Giving away all rights to my image as one odd ball.
I refused to sign several of them.
Hiring manager was highly confused. But was fine with it. Wasn’t a big deal to them at all.
Surprised me, because I almost walked away because of it.
Yeah, this approach of burning bridges is shocking to me. I work in the video games industry and people very frequently leave...only to return in 2-3 years again. Company hopping is very frequent(for various reasons, main of which is money) but most people seem to understand that you cannot, under any circumstances, burn bridges on either side. The junior leaving you now might come back as a senior in 4 years time. The company that is unwilling to pay you more now, will happily hire you back at 2x the salary in 3 years time. You can't afford to be mean to leaving employees or former employers.
Similar situation in the VFX industry. Post-employment NCAs would devastate this industry and ruin the lives of thousands of individuals with how this industry works. And add more spots on the map of which studios to completely avoid.
> It may make their current employees decide not to leave, but it may also lower morale and make future recruits not join
Based on several discussions I've had with former coworkers and the numerous discussions on Blind and Reddit, morale may be pretty low already, especially for everyone in non-senior roles. Seems to be common knowledge that Amazon has a PIP quota, and people are terrified of it.
The hell of it is that an awful lot of companies would shrug, back away slowly, rescind the job offer, and select a different candidate. I mean, the alternative is going toe to toe in a legal fight with freaking Amazon--what sane person would do such a thing?!
Even aside from the actual legal threats in this case, just the existence of these broad non-competes (or often even a non-compete at all unless, maybe, it's very narrowly drawn.
I worked for a small consulting firm for a number of years and we passed on at least one candidate we'd have been interested in because they were at a big client, had a probably irrelevant NDA, but my management was pretty much "Big nope. Not worth the risk."
Fortunately the one time I had to sign one because of an acquisition, it was actually fairly narrow. (You couldn't go to a competing storage company at VP level or above for x months.) Though it admittedly helped that I wasn't actually in the storage division of the acquired company.
This is what most outside counsel in WA advise their corporate clients. Use non-competes. Even though everyone knows they are essentially unenforceable.
A "venomous separation" is more lucrative for outside counsel than an amicable one where they are not needed.
Attempting to enforce a non-compete would be handled by outside counsel. It is likely that oustide counsel were consulted before Amazon began using non-compete provisions. It is also likly that the "boilerplate" non-complete provision(s) Amazon is using originated from an outside firm.
I wish you and everyone else who has to write these legal replies can open source these letters so that the process of going up against these large enterprises doesn't sound so intimidating.
If you’re going up against a behemoth like Amazon, the last thing you want to do is copy someone else’s letter. There are too many important variables that can completely change the situation which are not immediately apparent unless you are already familiar the law.
To decrease the intimidation, you’re much better off simply calling someone who already understand the nuances of the particular law which governs your unique situation and paying for a couple hours of their time.
While it's most definitely true that most people who want to fight back will get legal counsel, I am talking more about giving faith to fight to those who yield at the sight of the first letter.
If your experiences were more made more public, as to the exact process, people would be less scared about beginning their own process of fighting back.
This wouldn't be able to happen in EU as well. Previous employer can't force you to not being able to offer your services in the job market. They can pay you instead.
It's usually unwise to speak in general terms about the EU. It's 27 different legal systems, after all. For instance, in the Netherlands non-compete clauses are enforceable, though with some restrictions [1].
They mostly can't in the US either. And Amazon has apparently rarely prevailed in enforcing it. But that doesn't prevent them using lawsuits as a kudgel to punish defectors.
Please elaborate, here in Sweden a NCA is only enforceable if the company is willing to pay up to 60% of the full salary to keep the non-compete, limited to 18 months maximum.
in the UK for example, which is still sort of in the EU during the transition period, a non-compete IS enforceable as long as it is reasonable and proportionate.
Overly long time periods or overly broad geography will get it struck out, but 6 months not working for a direct competitor is usually going to be fair game.
How do companies like Amazon track down new employers of individual developers? I can understand tracking VPs, but when you say that they tried to enforce such non-competes hundreds of times I assume the went after random developer scrubs like me. So how does this work? Developers tell previous employer about new one before leaving? Update their linkedin profile on first day on new job?
As for us, we responded to their nasty letter with a nastier letter that told them that we didn't view the employee in violation, that the non-compete was absolutely unenforceable in California and essentially unenforceable in Washington -- and that we were prepared to draw pistols at dawn over it. That was more or less the end of it, but it was traumatizing to the ex-AWS employee, turning an otherwise amicable separation venomous; it's despicable, cowardly behavior.
(Also, if anyone needs counsel on the ground in King County to fight this, I have a great recommendation for you; DMs open.)