Comment by dunpeal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dunpeal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'd expect Amazon to fight you hard. They take their non-competes very seriously. I had friends get offers for senior positions, successfully negotiate every aspect of the package - especially substantial pay increases - yet fail to get any traction on the non-competes.

Amazon was clear that this clause is non-negotiable, even when everything else is, and even when that clause alone caused the candidate to decline.

They also have one of the most notorious records of actually suing former employees for non-compete breaches:

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/business-personal-amazon-web-s...

(Which didn't prevent them from telling my friend "why worry about the non-compete, it's almost never enforced".)

So yeah, I don't expect them to give it up so easily.

It's a clear case where the best interest of the state clashes with the best interest of large corporations... and the corporations prevail.

TFA mentions research that supports the claim that California became tech capital of the US because of non-compete non-enforcement. What's good for each individual business is bad for all of them together and the economy as a whole.

Tragedy of the commons.

It really irks me that companies don't have to disclose all of the non-negotiable conditions (and something about their pay scales) before a candidate has any sunk costs.

The nice thing about infamous companies like Amazon is that I know never to respond.

I've heard this about amazon. Without giving myself away, I'm a very experienced engineer and people asked me to come work there in a senior role, but the fact they have started to enforce non-competes means no one should go there. It's a serious problem. So I can't work in my field after I leave an amazon job? They do basically everything, they compete with every software company. it's just ridiculous.

On a scale of "number of staff who leave" vs "number of staff who threatened with legal action", it really does count as almost never enforced.

As the Geekwire article mentions, it's a scare tactic: don't try to leave for a direct competitor, or a business we particularly dislike - or you might end up spending the next several years in courts and out of a job.

Who knows how many employees were discouraged from taking a job with such direct competitors due to this substantial threat?

Just being told by HR that you'd be sued would rationally discourage most people.

It also selectively prevents some of Amazon's best employees from pursuing some of their best career alternatives. Would you like to get into this twisted paradoxical game, in which the better you perform at your job, and the more lucrative your alternative opportunity is (i.e. the more they underpay you), the more likely you are to get sued for taking it?

This is depressing wages and hurting all employees, not just the few chosen for a lawsuit.

That's true, but the 2% chance of someone making your life miserable is unfortunate.

Exactly. It's a nightmare scenario: you're a well-performing, well-paid (but still underpaid) Amazon employee. You change jobs for much better pay... But then Amazon sues.

Typically, you'll lose your new job, and probably become untouchable by most other employers. You'll be forced to pay a small fortune for lawyers, and spend numerous days in court, with the outcome uncertain, possibly for years, all while you're likely unemployed.

Not a chance most people would like to take.

This small risk of something very bad sounds like a case where insurance against this could be a win-win. "Pay a % of your increased earnings, and we cover any litigation related to your non-compete." If someone were able to analyze agreements and state laws to develop a good underwriting model there could be potential for an insurance tech startup here.

Yeah, or we could just have passed a version of the "garden leave" that wasn't toothless

On the plus side, now apparently only one year in Massachusetts.

Better than nothing, but one year is ages in technology.

Imagine you're working on cutting-edge technology, get an offer to lead a team or maybe a whole startup... but you have to wait a year.

For most startups, that's a deal-breaker. They simply can't wait that long.

So that's one key reason California is far better for startups - in other states, they're effectively prevented from poaching employees from big tech.

(Waiting a year is generally fine for big companies.)

Oh, I don't disagree, but before the limit was just "reasonable," whatever that meant.

Absolutely agreed. Didn't say to the counter. Was just pointing out that what was said was accurate. It's almost never enforced.

Thankfully when it came time to leave Amazon, Oracle retained a lawyer on my behalf to handle those exit negotiations. Made life a lot less hassle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com