• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Amazon makes even temporary warehouse workers sign 18-month non-competes

Status
Not open for further replies.

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
I understand the need for some non-compete clauses in the tech industry, but warehouse grunts? That's just straight up dickery.

Amazon is the country’s largest and most sophisticated online retailer, but it still runs largely on manual labor. Scattered around the country are massive warehouses staffed by workers who spend their days picking objects off shelves and putting them in boxes. During the holiday season, the company calls on a huge reserve army of temporary laborers.

The work is repetitive and physically demanding and can pay several dollars above minimum wage, yet Amazon is requiring these workers — even seasonal ones — to sign strict and far-reaching noncompete agreements. The Amazon contract, obtained by The Verge, requires employees to promise that they will not work at any company where they "directly or indirectly" support any good or service that competes with those they helped support at Amazon, for a year and a half after their brief stints at Amazon end. Of course, the company’s warehouses are the beating heart of Amazon’s online shopping empire, the extraordinary breadth of which has earned it the title of "the Everything Store," so Amazon appears to be requiring temp workers to foreswear a sizable portion of the global economy in exchange for a several-months-long hourly warehouse gig.
""It is quite broad in its scope.""

The company has even required its permanent warehouse workers who get laid off to reaffirm their non-compete contracts as a condition of receiving severance pay. When Amazon shut down a massive warehouse in Coffeyville, Kansas, earlier this year, hundreds of employees lost work. One laid-off warehouse worker, who earned just over $12 an hour unloading inbound freight at the Coffeyville facility, showed The Verge a clause in her severance agreement that admonished her to "fully comply" with the noncompetition agreement. This worker wished to remain anonymous because of a non-disclosure agreement she signed with Amazon.

"It is quite broad in its scope," says Orly Lobel a professor of labor and employment law at University of San Diego, who has studied noncompetes extensively and reviewed the Amazon agreement.

"During employment and for 18 months after the Separation Date, Employee will not, directly or indirectly, whether on Employee’s own behalf or on behalf of any other entity (for example, as an employee, agent, partner, or consultant), engage in or support the development, manufacture, marketing, or sale of any product or service that competes or is intended to compete with any product or service sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon (or intended to be sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon in the future) that Employee worked on or supported, or about which Employee obtained or received Confidential Information."

Noncompete agreements have traditionally been associated with highly skilled, white collar jobs where, in exchange for signing a restrictive contract, employees might gain specialized training and learn trade secrets that enable professional advancement. More recently, such contracts have been seeping into low-skilled and low-wage occupations that require little on-the-job training.

This trend is likely occurring at least in part because employers know they can get away with it in today’s economy, where jobs are scarce, says Charlotte Garden, a law professor at Seattle University School of Law. "When you have a more vulnerable workforce applying for jobs," Garden says, "they’re not going to attempt to negotiate the terms of the contract they’re handed."


The expansion of noncompetes into low-wage work came to national attention last year, when the Huffington Post reported that Jimmy John’s had some of its permanent workers sign noncompete agreements that covered sandwich sellers within three miles of Jimmy John’s locations. US Congress members called for a federal investigation into the sandwich chain's use of the agreements. The Amazon contract appears more extreme: it is not only being pushed on temporary workers, who will have their opportunities inevitably constrained upon their planned dismissal, but it is also explicit in its potentially limitless geographic reach.

"Employee recognizes that the restrictions in this section 4 may significantly limit Employee’s future flexibility in many ways," the agreement asserts, referencing the section containing the noncompete agreement and three other clauses. "Employee further recognizes that the geographic areas for many of Amazon’s products and services — and, by extension, the geographic areas applicable to certain restrictions in this Section 4 — are extremely broad and in many cases worldwide."

The contract — which was obtained through applying and being accepted to a seasonal Amazon warehouse position — even includes a provision that requires employees who sign it to "disclose and provide a true and correct copy of this Agreement to any prospective new employer [...] BEFORE accepting employment[…]"

Laid-off employees were asked to reaffirm the noncompete contract as a condition of receiving severance: "Employee understands and agrees that Employee has continuing obligations under the Nondisclosure and Noncompetition Agreement reaffirms those commitments in this Agreement, and agrees that, as part of this Agreement, Employee will comply fully with the terms of the Nondisclosure and Noncompetition Agreement."

It’s unclear whether Amazon has attempted to enforce its noncompete contracts with hourly warehouse workers, and Amazon did not respond when asked about this by The Verge. But the company does have a history of aggressively pursuing such cases against white collar workers. Last year, after a former Amazon marketing manager took a job at Google, Amazon leveled a suit against him that was said to test the standards of noncompete law. The willingness of courts to validate such agreements can vary dramatically across states. But regardless of whether courts are willing to enforce them, noncompetes can still affect workers’ behavior.

Regina Lee, a seasonal Amazon worker who signed a noncompete, takes the agreement seriously. In recent years, as Lee has struggled to find decent-paying work, she has become a both loyal and grateful member of Amazon’s army of seasonal warehouse workers. "Before I worked at Amazon, I applied to Walmart, and I didn't get anywhere, so I'm just happy to have a job," Lee says. "Especially a job I can go back to every winter." Lee says that, during last year’s pre-Christmas rush, Amazon’s human resources team in Coffeyville, Kansas, helped accommodate her when she suffered an allergic reaction that caused her to need to switch to a different job within the warehouse. "It was above and beyond anything my previous employers would have done," Lee said.
""It was above and beyond anything my previous employers would have done.""

Lee wants to continue her seasonal work at Amazon, and because of the noncompete that she’s signed, she would be careful if she were to apply for a second job at an Amazon competitor like Sam’s Club, the wholesale subsidiary of Walmart. Lee says, in this hypothetical scenario, she would be clear with the hiring agents at Sam’s Club about the noncompete she’d signed at Amazon and would also contact Amazon to ask for permission for working at Sam’s Club.

"I’d send Amazon a thing and say: ‘I applied at Sam's Club. How do you feel?’" Lee said. "Then it would be up to Sam's Club to hire me and up to Amazon to say yes or no."

Lee’s husband, Ray, is also a seasonal Amazon worker and says that he believes the noncompete contract only applies to trade secrets: "How technical is it to go and box stuff everyday and send it off?" Apart from their Amazon work, the couple has sought work at theme parks and campgrounds and have not had their behavior affected by noncompete agreements.

It goes without saying that non-competes can be horrendously punishing for people with limited venues for work and few marketable skills as they can make you basically unhirable if you lose your job. It's just another way to perpetuate wage slavery and ensure that your staff won't get cocky if you decide to cut their salaries or increase the workload.

Amazon deserves to catch some real flak for this.
 
D

Deleted member 13876

Unconfirmed Member
So taking on a temp job could actually push someone with little options into long stretches of unemployment...
 

entremet

Member
Amazon are as shitty an employer as they are good at customer service.

It depends where you work in the Amazon ecosystem. Warehouse work is shitty. Work as a developer for them, you're making some nice cash.

The sad thing is warehouse workers are easily expendable and their wages and how Amazon treats them is reflective of that.

I'm not endorsing the treatment, just illustrating the harsh realities of it is.
 

Somnid

Member
I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't seem to restrict the ability to work in a labor field, just working with other companies to develop technology that would compete with things they saw or used in an Amazon warehouse.
 
D

Deleted member 13876

Unconfirmed Member
I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't seem to restrict the ability to work in a labor field, just working with other companies to develop technology that would compete with things they saw or used in an Amazon warehouse.

You mean like hands?
 

Zombine

Banned
"The way that Amazon moves their boxes is way better than the way you guys move your boxes, here's a way to move your boxes faster."
 

Alavard

Member
"During employment and for 18 months after the Separation Date, Employee will not, directly or indirectly, whether on Employee’s own behalf or on behalf of any other entity (for example, as an employee, agent, partner, or consultant), engage in or support the development, manufacture, marketing, or sale of any product or service that competes or is intended to compete with any product or service sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon (or intended to be sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon in the future) that Employee worked on or supported, or about which Employee obtained or received Confidential Information."

Based on this, you wouldn't even be allowed to work at a book store.
 
It is bad but it is also basically unenforceable.

No court in the nation would enforce non compete clause against some non skilled stock-picker warehouse worker. That would just not happen.


However, they should be forced to remove just because it might actually scare someone into not applying for a job elsewhere.
 
Seems like amazon has been getting shittier and shittier lately and yet still don't record profits. This will probably just get swept under the rug.
 

Fox318

Member
It is bad but it is also basically unenforceable.

No court in the nation would enforce non compete clause against some non skilled stock-picker warehouse worker. That would just not happen.

pretty much.

Plus different states and cities have laws that void agreements like this anyway.
 

BamfMeat

Member
How, traditionally, have non-compete agreements been handled and/or litigated in the past? Does Amazon actually have a standing here?
 

entremet

Member
Seems like amazon has been getting shittier and shittier lately and yet still don't record profits. This will probably just get swept under the rug.

Amazon is a very interesting company in that regard. I guess investor have bought the KoolAid Jeff Bezos have sold them.

They're pretty visionary, though.
 

Somnid

Member
You mean like hands?

No, Amazon warehouses are extremely high-tech and use a lot of special processes and technologies to increase gathering efficiency. My guess would be companies like Walmart were finding warehouse employees to get trade secrets. I don't think this is too uncommon when people work around specialized machinery though I think it usually manifests as an NDA unless you're an engineering type career. I expect it to be challenged.
 
It depends where you work in the Amazon ecosystem. Warehouse work is shitty. Work as a developer for them, you're making some nice cash.
You do make good cash, but everyone I've known in higher level positions (managers, developers, etc) say they've hated working there, even with the money they get.

Having to work WAY over 40 hours a week, and management being extremely resistant to ideas being some of the issues I've heard most often.
 
After working in a few warehouses I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

You are literally a beast of burden to management and the company. Nothing about you as a human being matters to them.

Totally not shocked Amazon would try to do something like this. The well being and occupational long term success of those human beings working in their warehouse is of absolutely no concern to them.
 

tokkun

Member
It is bad but it is also basically unenforceable.

No court in the nation would enforce non compete clause against some non skilled stock-picker warehouse worker. That would just not happen.


However, they should be forced to remove just because it might actually scare someone into not applying for a job elsewhere.

Realistically, they would never even try to enforce the terms of the agreement on an unskilled worker because the company has no incentive to do so (in fact, it has a negative incentive). The agreement exists as a blanket clause to prevent the workers who are privy to their trade secrets from sharing them with other companies.

The whole thing is very stupid, though. There are seperate laws designed to protect trade secrets, and non-competes are not a substitute because they are not legally enforceable in all states. If Walmart wants to hire an Amazon employee for nefarious reasons, they could just do it in California, and the non-compete would be voided.
 

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't seem to restrict the ability to work in a labor field, just working with other companies to develop technology that would compete with things they saw or used in an Amazon warehouse.
don't interject logic
 

Jag

Member
The Verge is about to get a very hefty subpoena from Amazon. Having dealt with their legal before, it won't be a pleasant experience.
 

commish

Jason Kidd murdered my dog in cold blood!
It is bad but it is also basically unenforceable.

No court in the nation would enforce non compete clause against some non skilled stock-picker warehouse worker. That would just not happen.


However, they should be forced to remove just because it might actually scare someone into not applying for a job elsewhere.

It doesn't matter if it can be enforced or not. It's a huge red flag to the next company this guy/gal works for. I'd never hire a person if I knew he/she was under a noncompete for the next 18 months. Why invite that headache? Should just be removed altogether. Pretty lame.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
What the fuck? I signed a non-compete at my old job because I was doing design work in a very specific industry. Why the hell do you need one for a goddamn warehouse job?
 

Somnid

Member
don't interject logic

Well, ultimately, it's as broad as Amazon's lawyers are willing to make it. Can you bounce from Amazon to a Walmart warehouse as picker? It's hard to say if they would come after you, but that's why I expect it to be challenged. I also have no idea if such a contract can hold up either, but it's certain that for your average picker this legalese is a burden because it's not entirely clear and they can't afford lawyers so for the moment, valid or not, we can look at it as a power position on the lower class.
 

Jeff-DSA

Member
Most employers have these in their contracts, but almost nobody enforces them. Furthermore, in many states they're not enforceable anyway. I would doubt that Amazon would actually try to enforce these.
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
don't interject logic

It goes well beyond that. These clauses are becoming more and more comon among low tier positions because they allow management to coherce workers.

With unions becoming less and less common, many uninformed workers won't even dare to contest such clauses when the higher ups tell them to suck it or hit the curb. They can easily wave their contracts at them and scare them into compliance.

It doesn't matter if they are unenforceable. That is well outside the actual goal of the clause. It is only there to provide leverage.

I'm with Mammoth Jones here. I worked at a warehouse when I was a student and you are nothing but a beast of burden. Janitors were treated like royalty in comparison and management made their damn best to remind us how lucky we were to even have such a crappily paid job. After all, we were too dumb to even tend tables at a bar. I quit as soon as my contract expired.

I swear some of them would have spitted at us if they could. It's something hard to believe until you've seen it with your own eyes.
 

numble

Member
I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't seem to restrict the ability to work in a labor field, just working with other companies to develop technology that would compete with things they saw or used in an Amazon warehouse.
Good thing you're not a lawyer. You simply need to read it to know that it does not just involve technology.

don't interject logic
Good thing he didn't.
 
I've only boughten a few items from amazon, there's really no reason for me to shop there when big chains price match them.

They seem to treat there employees like shit, so I won't support them.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
Based on this, you wouldn't even be allowed to work at a book store.

Considering they sell food and just about anything, you could not get a job period.

Shortened for those who can't tell how this wide reading is achieved, regardless of its possible legal standing.

"During employment and for 18 months after the Separation Date, Employee will not, directly or indirectly, whether on Employee’s own behalf or on behalf of any other entity (for example, as an employee, agent, partner, or consultant), engage in or support the development, manufacture, marketing, or sale of any product or service that competes or is intended to compete with any product or service sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon (or intended to be sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon in the future) that Employee worked on or supported, or about which Employee obtained or received Confidential Information."

"During employment and for 18 months after the Separation Date, Employee will not, directly or indirectly ... engage in or support the ... sale of any product ... that competes ... with any product ... sold by Amazon ... that Employee worked on or supported."
 
For those who are interested, those non-competes are completely worthless. They are so broad and overbearing in both length and type of work that it basically bans you from working anywhere and for almost any employer. Even if an employee signs something where it says they appreciate that Amazon is a global company and that may restrict them geographically to where they work, it would never hold up in any reasonable court.

Courts have been historically loathe to restrict business, and these things are absolutely untenable as propositions of law (viz a vie their lack of geographical restriction, their length, their constructed ability to prevent you from working in essentially any store AT ALL as they all theoretically compete with Amazon, etc). But here is the best part about it.

Amazon knows these things are legally untenable, but they use them as a scare tactic to try and impress upon people who are not legally savvy a false fear that they will be pursued legally for attempting to work at other places, when in fact, that would never happen as these workers tend to not be the kind of people who are worth pursuing in court. Additionally, establishing damages in this case would be absolutely impossible unless there was a reasonable liquidated damages clause in their agreements or they had some sort of special knowledge or impact that could be observed in a different company. This is why they DO pursue white collar workers as their presence is much more easily quantifiable and trackable, compared to the mongolian horde of temporary workers who would be impossible to litigate against separately.

A final point to mention is that non-competes are legal, but in order to be enforceable they tend to need to be very restricted geographically and often restricted to a single industry or group of related industries. Where applicable, companies will simply use non-solicitation clauses (don't talk to our customers or try to take them) instead as these are much easier to track and document.
 

Aruarian Reflection

Chauffeur de la gdlk
I was working in the ER when an ambulance brought in a young guy who was in a highway car accident. He looked fairly stable and there were no obvious injuries, but there's a routine work-up that we do to make sure there's no internal bleeding or anything we're missing, especially considering the high speed of the accident. He also had the seat belt sign, which could be a sign of blunt abdominal trauma. He refused everything and wanted to get the hell out of the ER. After a little digging I found out he was an Amazon warehouse worker who was scared that if he didn't go back to work right away he would get in trouble. I offered to call his boss but he didn't know the direct number for the warehouse; all he had was the number of the recruiting office which I called but nobody answered. I then called Amazon's main help desk and explained the situation, asking if they could give me the number for the warehouse so I could talk to his supervisor. This was obviously a very unusual situation and I was put on hold for awhile but ultimately they refused to give me the number =(

Here's this young guy who could potentially have major injuries but was willing to risk his life just to get back to work. Sure, he probably wasn't the brightest person but it also made me wonder what type of working environment the Amazon warehouses are
 

NimbusD

Member
It is bad but it is also basically unenforceable.

No court in the nation would enforce non compete clause against some non skilled stock-picker warehouse worker. That would just not happen.


However, they should be forced to remove just because it might actually scare someone into not applying for a job elsewhere.

Well even if it doesn't hold up, it's a large corporation that has the power to influence the actions of their workers illegally. It's similar to how almost every landlord I've had in a larger NYC building has shady shit in the lease that doesn't actually hold up and it pretty laughable (I've had stuff like, I agree that I can't sue them for anything, etc.). But the point isn't that it holds up, it's that it puts an extra roadblock in the other person's way to actually do anything.

For someone who doesn't make a lot of money to do anything, even perfectly legal things, they're going to be spending good sums of money on a lawyer, when the corporation is already paying lawyers and won't be taking a hit.
 

MickD

Member
I worked in the warehouse for two weeks because I needed the work. The guards would take my cell phone every day and write the serial number down.. Weird place man.
 

Cyan

Banned
A final point to mention is that non-competes are legal...

Depends on where you are. I read a fascinating article the other day that argued that the biggest single reason for Silicon Valley's ongoing success was the illegality of non-competes in California.
 

Cyan

Banned
Best not to forget that there was an illegal de facto non-compete agreement between some of the biggest Silicon Valley employers for many years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation

Yes, absolutely. Though that was about blocking "poaching" from other companies and thus keeping salaries artificially low, rather than not hiring people after they left a job.

The article I read argues that non-compete agreements elsewhere drove engineers and inventors to move to California.
 

slit

Member
My feelings have always been it shouldn't be legal for a company to do that to anyone unless they agree to pay you during that time. They're basically telling you can't make a living based on your skillset.
 
Depends on where you are. I read a fascinating article the other day that argued that the biggest single reason for Silicon Valley's ongoing success was the illegality of non-competes in California.
Haha. I was going to ask how these clauses were designed for the tech industry when the reality of it is that people do move between competing companies.

I never understood these clauses TBH. I mean, I get why they're there but the reality of it is that the competition is often a natural place to land into.
 
I don't think this is necessarily exclusive to Amazon or even big box retailers. I did temp administrative work for a defense contractor and had to sign a non-compete document, even though all I was doing was organizing calendars and ordering catering.

They just wanted to make sure I didn't take any notes on any blueprints and went running to a different DoD contractor. It didn't mean I couldn't transfer my MS Outlook knowledge from job to job.
 

Acorn

Member
My feelings have always been it shouldn't be legal for a company to do that to anyone unless they agree to pay you during that time. They're basically telling you can't make a living based on your skillset.
I see the point for executive or higher up employees with intimate trade secrets knowledge. Plus they are more likely to have enough money to tide over or more options for employment.

Regarding the payment during the cooling off, they'd argue that your pay during employment was for that (and everything else in the contract). Not that I agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom