Remind us again, why work for AWS? Petty Amazon sues marketing veep after he defects to Google Cloud Amazon has kicked off a legal challenge to prevent a former AWS product marketing veep from taking a senior role at rival Google Cloud. An injunction request filed with the King County court in the US state of Washington – and obtained by Geekwire – asks that Brian Hall, one-time AWS VP of product marketing, be barred from …
"...throughout his tenure at AWS, Hall and his superiors operated with the understanding that the non-compete clause was not actually part of his contract..."
A verbal contract, as the saying goes, is not worth the paper it's printed on.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of non-compete agreements and think they should be outlawed.
However, if there was one in his written contract, which he presumably signed, and all he has in his defence is "they pinky-promised not to enforce it!!", then I don't think he has a leg to stand on.
What he should have done is called their bluff at the outset, and struck out that clause in the contract before signing it. Or better yet, asked for a new version of the contract sans NCA "boilerplate".
IANAL etc etc.
The problem with the non-compete clauses is that, from the perspective of the employer at least, they were created to assure trade secrets from too easily falling into the hands of competitors, it's nothing more than screw the worker.
In reality the non-compete also allows the almost-equivalent of slave labor: If you leave, you are out of work, and therefore out of income, for 18 months (in this case). Since most people are VERY unlikely to want that, we can pretty much do whatever we want to you - no pay raises, forced overtime, no advancements, whatever we can squeak by your contact - and you will most likely put up with it rather than suffer extended unemployment.
Entendured servitude by engineered contract clause. How sweet. How scummy. The Big Wigs get their Golden Parachute when they leave and activate the non-compete; everyone else gets the equivalent of a bread line.
Remember to thank your government representatives for allowing such villainy, their love of money and Big Business will always show through in the end.
You are correct. A company cannot force you to not earn a wage for 18 months.
They either need to pay you for the duration of the non-compete - ensure this is written in the contract - or they need to not enforce it. And also, it's possible to get the non-compete waived depending on how well you get on with your former employer.
I've seen people jump to a competitor. Some former bosses are fine. Some former bosses are vindictive and try to enforce the non-compete. Bluffs were called. Lawyers were called in. Clauses were found to be unenforceable. Money changed hands. Hundreds of staff were presented with new contracts to sign the next month.
I would have though that in this field and at this level a person would be unable to get any new employment when subject to such a clause.
They are effectively making the employee work 18 months notice for no pay.
But hell, nothing surprises me now with the lengths these huge tech companies will go to manipulate things. They simply believe that they are above any law that does not benefit them directly and if you through enough lawyers and money at a problem it can be buried.
I've also seen non-compete clauses that specify the worker, for x months, can't work on products that compete with products they worked on for the old company. One person I talked to had been through that exact situation - when he changed employers, the new employer simply kept him away from the one competing product until the time ran out.
Likewise, I understand that a company can't generally prevent a worker from working for ANY competing firm for a long period (like a year) unless they pay the worker for that time. It's a question of how restrictive the non-compete clause is.
What he should have done is called their bluff at the outset, and struck out that clause in the contract before signing it. Or better yet, asked for a new version of the contract sans NCA "boilerplate"
And if a company insists on including such a clause in an employment contract, it should be mandatory in law that they keep paying your salary for 18 months after you leave the company if said clause prevents you from working for another company.
Yeah like that'll happen...
It does happen. The company you exited will pay your gardening leave. You just need to ensure it is in the contract *before* you sign it. (Putting things in the contract before signing seems to be the difficult part here.)
I've seen a 6 month non-compete where the previous company will pay 3 months wages.
Also, if you're a hot enough commodity that you have over a year of non-compete (wowza!) then it's likely that the company you're going to will pay you a signing bonus and advance you your salary to tide you over. By the time you've got that much of a non-compete you have a cushion to survive it. I'm still at the 6 month gardening leave level but at my previous role was only at a 3 month leave level.
I really wouldn't count on that. I think employers will throw in any length they want to if they can get away with not paying while it runs out. Given that there are places where that is accepted in contracts, I'd expect employers in those areas to put in a year or longer even for basic people. It doesn't cost them anything to decide they don't care in this case and they'll let that employee go, and if they decide they do want to retain them, they have ammunition stored and ready. The only reason they'd limit it is if there were some restrictions forcing them to pay for part of the period, making them liable if the employee couldn't get an acceptable position, or forbidding it entirely. Without those restrictions, it would make a lot of sense for the company to be as predatory as possible.
I thought that was how sales work.
Sell software to a customer with features that do not exist.
Then come back to engineering telling them that these features have to be done by a certain date or the company will lose a major sale. That certain date is the delivery date which was yesterday.
Hence the saying I need that yesterday :)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
