Hacker News Reader

> Munira is a liar/cheater, and still employed at Amazon.

That's not the best part. The best part is that somebody who directly reported to Jeff Bezos essentially told the team to go ahead and keep lying to the customer in order to "maximize free cash flow for the device". Which isn't something you can spin into yet another "rogue employee" case in which "we'll review our policies".

That as well, but the evidence of that is much more anecdotal, and open to interpretation.

I don't know about the "open to interpretation" part. He clearly knew about it according to the transcript. Anything else than telling them to go to the customer and explain the issue is complicity of fraud.

I didn't really interpret it that way (although I understand the author did).

The division head asked something like "are we doing the right thing here?", and also said something like "we need to make money".

From the transcript provided it sounded like he didn't have the complete information about how they were screwing Discovery over: it sounded more like he was told that the campaign was costing Discovery more than Discovery had expected, but the plan was for Amazon to tell Discovery that they wanted to use money Discovery had already budgeted (and spent?) with Amazon but hadn't received a complete campaign for.

I've seen that kind of deal done before, and there isn't anything wrong with it provided both parties are transparent about it.

> The division head asked something like "are we doing the right thing here?", and also said something like "we need to make money".

That's not the message I get from "At the end of the day, you should do what you need to do to maximize free cash flow for the device." The priorities are clear.

And the sane, ethical response to that is, "I'm told Amazon takes the long view, and the long view here is that we will maximize FCF by not betraying partners and not doing anything we wouldn't want to appear on the front page of Hacker News."

Because, you know, that could happen... 'some day'.

He didn't encourage anyone to lie. He said he would leave it up to his direct reports to figure out how to maximize cash flow. If a subordinate then decided to lie, that was the subordinate's decision.

Whenever you think your boss is telling you to do something wrong, the best possible thing you can do is to write them a letter (and keep a copy) explaining how you think it's wrong, and that you want them to confirm that they want you to do it. If they refuse to confirm it, don't do it. People do actually have free will, you know.

> He didn't encourage anyone to lie. He said he would leave it up to his direct reports to figure out how to maximize cash flow. If a subordinate then decided to lie, that was the subordinate's decision.

You forgot the part where, after all that is said he goes "wink, wink".

Hey Folks, it was pretty clear he didn't want us to share sales data because it would make less money for the device. This was a separate issue from Discover. On the black & white e-ink Kindles, we had added a feature where users could buy from the device. The data was really bad - most advertisers paid thousands of dollars in minimum spending, and would sell a fraction of that spending in product sales. Amazon doesn't share that data with advertisers, and the SVP was basically telling the team not to share sales data because nobody in their right mind would buy a $10K or $20K ad if they ended up only selling $500 in product.

Are you the person who filed the law suit? If so, please stop posting on HN, unless your attorney is supervising your commentary.

People do actually have free will, you know.

Right -- just like they have the "free will" to decide to keep their jobs (and stay on the fast track). From the context, it's pretty darned clear what JB expected his subordinates to "freely decide" in this case.

> U know that's legal in the US

Not really. The company can add any stupid clause it wants to the contract, but in the vast majority of states which allow NCA at all for employees they're heavily restricted in time and space, and must not prevent employees from earning a living.

In Washington State, NCAs are enforceable if they're "validly formed and reasonable" (Racine v. Bender), although a big issue there is you have to go to court to see whether this specific NCA is enforceable or not. I would guess it's not (because it's completely unreasonable), and Amazon's behaviour is not entirely dissimilar to SLAPP.

edit: in fact, Amazon was essentially told to fuck off in what seems to be a different NCA case: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a5cde10f-9ca3-...

> When Amazon learned that Mr. Powers joined Google, it first engaged in discussions with Google about Mr. Powers' employment. Following those discussions, Amazon sought injunctive relief through a Washington state court. After Mr. Powers successfully removed the case to a Federal District Court in Washington, Amazon moved for a preliminary injunction against Mr. Powers to enforce the non-compete restrictions.

> The court denied most of Amazon's requests, and upheld the non-compete restriction only to the extent that it prohibited Mr. Powers, for a period of 9 months from the date he last had access to Amazon confidential information, from servicing any customer as to which he had obtained confidential information* during his employment at Amazon (this restriction was essentially the same restriction as the one Mr. Power voluntarily agreed to upon joining Google).

> […]

> With respect to the validity of the non-compete restrictions, the court next determined that the restrictions were enforceable only to the extent that they sought to prevent Mr. Powers from working with his former Amazon customers. The court also determined, however, that Amazon's attempt to uphold the more general "worldwide" ban against competition — i.e., not tied to specific customers — was unenforceable because it was unreasonable and Amazon failed to show how such a restriction was necessary to protect its business.

(emphasis mine)

I'm curious if you're aware of any precedent on how NC clauses hold up when the company terminates contract (such in this case as a firing). Typically I see the enforcement matter more when the employee voluntarily leaves, not when they're forced to.

To me the entire requirement of 'consideration' falls flat on its face where they've essentially webbed a case of ruining someone's livelihood by preventing them from finding work after termination all the while giving a plainly inadequate severance.

Sounds like a poor deal. Given that open, I'd forego the 4 weeks severance which appeared to be in exchange for the NCA.

Totally unacceptable and as much of my company's ~$4,000/mo spend with Amazon as possible is going to disappear if Munira isn't terminated. I've also passed this post along to someone I know at Discover possibly in a position to do something about it, though I can't imagine they're not already aware of it.

Very interesting - do you have a quotable source for that? Because she's still claiming to be a Stanford alumni in her LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/munirarahemtulla

If you read the letter it has a deposition transcript with her admitting it. Page 19.

"Munira was forced to admit under oath in deposition, several months after my termination, that she falsiﬁed her educational record on her resume to Amazon and all her previous employers - claiming to have earned a Bachelors and Masters degree in Computer Science from Stanford when in fact she earned no degrees at all."

Also an interesting commentary quote from the page 21 of the letter:

"And in fact, even after ﬁnding out about Munira’s lies regarding her educational background and other issues I raised before my termination, Jeff Blackburn represented in his deposition that Munira was given a promotion, even though according to Amazon’s policies, falsiﬁcation of personnel records is a Tier 1 offense likely resulting in immediate termination"

The letter reads awesomely, totally like a good book.

This is made stranger by the fact the Jeff Blackburn says he knew she hadn't completed the degrees, and hired her anyways. And he went to Stanford. For an MBA. Honestly this looks really bad for Amazon, partly because it's obvious how expected and systemic this behavior is

> At the end of the day. You should do what you need to do to maximize free cash flow for the device. Do what you need to do to make more money

"I know she hasn't completed it yet" - this guys words are 100% weasel.

Well, yes, we assume you would be aware that she hadn't yet completed a course (her Masters) she couldn't enroll in yet because she had not completed her undergraduate.

This is something my step-daughter could understand, especially with her education as a lawyer (not yet completed, as she is seven years old).

Maybe her profile has been changed now but it's only showing that she's following Stanford and in a Stanford group - There's nothing in the experience and education sections at all.

In Google+ it says "attended Stanford University" https://plus.google.com/109990231058522395347/posts (so maybe a Stanford dropout?).

Obiously, the letter mentions that she had "not yet" a degree. So, i think it's likely she dropped out or sort of paused her studies, whatever...

It seems like she claimed that she had both a Bachelors and Masters degree from Stanford when indeed she did not have both. Can she be pursuing a Master's degree when she had not completed a Bachelors?

Both of those things are false (she said as much in the deposition), but "attended Stanford" could mean that she dropped out before going for a Bachelor's degree, so may not be a lie.

I can't speak for Stanford, but I pursued a BS and MS simultaneously at Cal Poly. Cal Poly's computer science department has a 4+1 program that lets you start taking graduate courses while you're finishing your undergraduate degree. The program also drops the senior project requirement for the BS and combines it with the master's thesis required for the MS.

If she were a Stanford student, she could have been in the coterminal BS/MS program for Comp Sci yet dropped out before getting either. The nice thing about the coterm program is your ability to get classified as a grad student early (once you get 180 credits) and start paying your way through college using research and teaching assistantships, which provide tuition and stipend.

Hey, maybe she's still trying to pass CS106X. That's a tough one, give her a break!

Google+ not being actively maintained by someone? I'm shocked I tell you...

It seems I didn't look thoroughly. "Stanford Alumni" was listed in one of her groups, and Stanford itself was listed in the "follow" section on her page - sorry, you're right!

independent of the facts, shall we not start doxing individuals here? this isn't 4chan.

Does finding a public linkedin profile count as doxing? I don't know much about the topic, but I was under the impression that there was more to it than that. it was a black-hat hacker thing, that it involved getting past some kind of access control.

This definitely isn't doxing.

Doxing is when you find very personal information, such as place of residence. In can involve information about the workspace, Linked-in profile or so forth - but only in the case that the victim is operating under a pseudonym and have not disclosed their true identity themselves.

This isn't doxxing. Doxxing would be if we posted her address, po box, mailing address, etc.

What we are doing here is calling someone out on their bullshit in a public profile.

Why are you down-voting this person? They are not trolling. They're only advising a little restraint.

Honestly, calling this doxing is pretty accurate. Before that user posted her LinkedIn profile, she was an anonymous figure in this dispute which, frankly, was all that was relevant to HN. Now, through LinkedIn, she will potentially receive hate mail and, with an identifying image, is more likely to be pinpointed on other platforms which may reveal more personal information about her.

People should remember that there is a lot about this situation that they don't know. This man who was fired from Amazon may have a legitimate grievance and he may not. Things might look one way when described on paper, but could have seemed quite different in real life. We could be (and probably are) missing out on a lot of important details that only eye-witnesses could be aware of.

> Before that user posted her LinkedIn profile, she was an anonymous figure in this dispute which, frankly, was all that was relevant to HN.

How was she anonymous when she was named in the article? Her LinkedIn profile is literally the first thing that comes up if you google her.

> Discover Card pays $500 000 for a campaign that gives $10 to each user who switches default 1-click card to Discover.

Actually, no. This is the key twist that changes the whole picture. It is only his editorializing that claims the point of the campaign was to convert 1-click defaults. But he is the only one claiming that. He himself notes that the campaign was not set up that way. It was set up to promote Discover card by rewarding all 1-click usage. Furthermore the response from Amazon notes that they reviewed the progress of the campaign with Discover and Discover was cool with continuing, provided it was narrowed to Fire users and capped at the original budget. [1]

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-lawsuit-kivin...

> But he is the only one claiming that.

And who claims otherwise? From the article you referenced:

> Business Insider reached out to Amazon and Discover, neither commented.

I, personally, find it quite hard to believe that Discover would be gifting users $10 without any apparent benefit, not even branding! Also, if what you're saying is true, why hasn't Amazon shared the detailed statistics with Discover? Why have all his superiors acted in such shady ways (judging from the emails)?

Also, if anyone is doing shitty editorializing, its BI:

> He decides to stay home sick for the rest of the week

Because people decide to get sick, right.

I don't really see a point in providing BI as a reference, as it has no other sources than the original source.

Actually BI cited other sources, namely Amazon's response and further email evidence from the lawsuit, which was somehow omitted from Kivin's document. In it the Amazon SVP statement notes that the campaign was set up to pay $10 as a reward to Discover card users, not tied to 1-click conversions. He also notes this was reviewed with Discover mid-promotion and they elected to continue within budget.

There is of course some promotional benefit to that, and it's not unusual in the card industry. While some card benefits are conditionally offered to new signups (e.g. promo APR), most are offered to the entire class (e.g. cashback rewards).

I think BI and the author were implying (or outright stating) that he refused to be involved in the issue and said "I'm 'sick', and won't be in. I need closure on X, Y, and Z issues", so it was fairly evident to all involved what was meant.

The PIP being used to prevent transferring is pretty underhanded as well.

Not surprising. Happened to someone I know at Google.

happens all the time at google :(

It doesn't sound like part of the deal was for 1-click defaults to be changed. It sounds like there was an assumption this would happen implicitly by giving it to everyone, but they underestimated how many Discover card users were already on 1-click:

The promotion was structured in a way where anyone with a Kindle, who used their Discover card to buy a digital good (e.g. mp3 or movie), would get a $10 Amazon Gift Card. The reason the good had to be digital is because to buy a digital good you need to use your 1-click default card, and Discover’s primary objective for this promotion was to get users who had a Discover card, to make it their 1-click default so Discover could be the card of choice for holiday shopping over the course of the fourth quarter. That was the only way Discover could justify spending $10 when someone ordered a $1 .mp3 music ﬁle.

It looks like Munira attended Stanford as an undergraduate, as she is an alumni of the Mayfield Fellows program [1]. However, it is not clear whether she graduated.

[1] http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/mfp/cgi-bin/mfpalumni/may_view...

Munira is a liar/cheater, and still employed at Amazon.

I'm still a little disturbed as to why I'm seeing her dragged through the mud on a top link on HN. We aren't a gossip site, so why is this "confidential" letter being shared amongst the community at this time? What context am I missing?

I think that 129 comments when I last looked, answers your concern.

The story is compelling because Amazon's treatment of Kivin is a relevant warning to HN readers, who sympathize with technical employees who are victimized by their employers. In this respect, it's similar to posts about the massive collusion between Google, Apple etc to suppress wages.

The use of Munira's real name isn't even necessary. S/he is just the hand of the corporation. It valuable for each HN reader to think about who Munira might be in their work place, and defend themselves appropriately.

I disagree, too many of these articles leave the wrong-doers unnamed and unscathed. I am happy Kivin is taking names and calling the whole thing for what it is. Amazon gave a 4-week severance and 18month non-compete clause, which falls even below than unfair.

This appears to be a lot deeper than Munira. It appears to indicate that there is serious culture rot at Amazon. That is an issue worthy of discussion on HN in my opinion, for numerous reasons. Such culture rot type discussions have occurred surrounding a lot of other companies, including Microsoft, IBM, HP, and so on.

You misunderstand. This isn't culture rot, this IS the culture at Amazon. The only way to get ahead is to step on the neck of your teammates, because at review time the group is graded on a curve. Somebody's getting a bad review (even if the entire team is doing well), so you had better make sure it's not you. (source - worked at Lab126 for 18 months)

Does Amazon use some kind of stack ranking?

I agree. It shouldn't be certain to anyone that there is a clear good side and bad side here. We weren't there, so we're probably unaware of a lot of important details in this dispute. If anything, the discussion should be about the principles represented by the situation and not about the people.

The letter is on file publicly at the Attorney General's office.

Non-competes may be legal but they almost never hold water, especially if you're new job is in a different state.

I know this was Washington, and I'm unfamiliar with the laws there, but I know in California it's nearly impossible to enforce a non-compete clause. [Here's a good read on the topic.](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/noncompete-clause...)

Amazon should be smart enough to know they can't put in a clause that's too far-reaching and preventing people from working anywhere in the world. I view it as more or less of a threat and nothing more. They wouldn't come after you if you walked across the street to Microsoft, Yahoo, or Apple. It happens all of the time.

I'm sure it does, it does everywhere else. But I think things are a bit different and higher stakes with executive level folks like the the one in question here. 18 months is not an eternity if one can "afford it". Ironically, that's what probably gave him prodigious free time to pursue legal action.

> Amazon should be smart enough to know they can't put in a clause that's too far-reaching and preventing people from working anywhere in the world.

Actually, they can put in such a clause. There's a difference between "unenforceable" and "illegal". There's nothing to prevent Amazon from including such a clause in the contract, even if it is clearly unenforceable. The worst case scenario, from Amazon's perspective, is that a court simply rules that the clause is unenforceable (as happened in the example masklinn gave https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8600939 ).

The best case scenario is that Amazon can frighten an ex-employee with the threat of legal action if he accepts a job with a competitor. Even if the ex-employee knows that a court will likely rule the clause is unenforceable, he has to decide whether he wants to go to the hassle and expense of fighting Amazon in court.

Amazon could also use the clause as a pretext to dissuade potential employers from hiring the ex-employee. Again, while the potential employer might realise that the clause is unenforceable, they have to decide whether they want to take the risk of hiring someone who will then be sued by Amazon (while it may not affect the potential employer directly, the new employee will inevitably be distracted by the court case).

I would never recommend that anyone sign an employment contract with a non-compete clause, even if it's clearly unenforceable. Even setting aside the potential legal hassle if it goes to court, you want to think about why they've included such a clause in the contract. Either they don't realise that it's unenforceable (in which case you have to question how competent they are), or they know it's unenforceable but don't care (which suggests that they plan to use it to frighten/bully you, as described above).

Recently, I turned down a job because the company included a clause in the employment contract under which I would have been prevented from engaging in "any activity" that competed with the company (or its related companies), anywhere in the world, for two years after I left the company. In the relevant legal jurisdiction (Switzerland), non-compete clauses are legal but "must be appropriately restricted with regard to place, time and scope such that it does not unfairly compromise the employee’s future economic activity". This one clearly wasn't. Effectively, it would have prevented me from working in banking or fintech, which is pretty much all that I've done for the last 14 years. I consulted an employment lawyer, who confirmed that it would definitely be thrown out if it ever went to court, so I pushed back.

I have zero problem with clauses that prohibit me from poaching clients or hiring other employees but if a company's hiring me for my expertise and experience that I've gained before going to work for them, I don't think it's reasonable for them to try to prevent me from using that same expertise and experience at another company if I leave them.

In the end, they refused to remove or alter the clause, so I turned down the job.

Amazon added a 12 month non compete clause to my 3 month long internship. Since I was planning to get another internship the next summer, it worried me that they'd think this made any sense at all. The HR recruiter essentially told me not to worry about it, it's never enforced.

I still think it's outrageous.

I know you have limited negotiating power as an intern, but the best response to "don't worry, it's never enforced" is "If you don't plan to enforce it, then there's no point in me signing it".

Just to follow up on that (and agreeing that as an intern this probably wouldn't fly), but when I started at my current job the employment agreement had some intellectual property clauses that simply wouldn't work, since I do occasional client work on the weekends and contribute to open source projects. It was most likely because I was the first full-time software developer hire (previously, software was written by contractors). I simply told them I needed to make a couple of changes to protect both of us, crossed off the offending sections, and attached an amendment to the contract using some standard boilerplate I found online that protected both of our interests fairly. Everyone was cool with it, we signed it, and everything is copacetic.

In finance non-compete clauses are enforced with an army of lawyers. It doesn't really matter to them if they lose in the end or not, you may be in court for years. The flip side is that you get paid for this time.

One of my friends left a major hedge fund with a two year non-compete and hold me he would never even think of crossing their lawyers as they would stop at nothing to ruin his life as an example to others. The law real only helps you if you have the resources to use it.

There's a difference between non-compete clauses (that prevent you from working for a competitor after you leave - and are no longer being paid by - your now-former employer) and gardening leave (where you're still employed and getting paid, but you're sent home for the duration of your notice period). The idea behind the latter is that, by the time your gardening leave is over, your knowledge of clients, etc. is out of date and/or (in situations where you've been the primary point of contact or managed the the relationship with the client) you've been replaced.

In most EU countries, non-compete clauses require compensation. In Germany of Belgium, comp' must be at least half the gross salary, for the entire extent of the clause (limited to 2 years in Germany, 1 in Belgium)

And the NCC may still be done away with for being "unreasonable" e.g. it can not cover the whole country and prevent the former employee from working in the field.

It's a bit more complicated. A non-compete is enforceable in CA if you own any equity of value that constitutes a loosely defined partnership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Exceptions_-...). Further you may be blocked from selling the equity for years after leaving, resulting in years of legal non-compete enforcement. It's a messy case, but I've been advised by actual lawyer that when he sees equity structured in certain way it's for no other reason but to make this case.

That isn't going to stop a terrible company like Amazon from suing someone for violating their NCA. Which they can and have done.