|
|
|
|
|
by mAEStro-paNDa
2510 days ago
|
|
So this has mostly to do with a non-complete clause. The author is pretty explicit in their view: > This clause is, to be direct, abusive. As far as I'm aware this is something that has been apparent for quite some time, and isn't limited to just Amazon. I can't personally conceive of why anyone subject to one of these would have any reason to believe that this isn't just another tool that benefits the company alone, and could perhaps even be used against you. A discussion about clauses such as this is well needed in general, not just the tech industry. Honestly, the real story that perhaps has more relevancy to tech is having (as the author correctly recognizes) the kind of privilege to turn down a job with Amazon. I'm no fan of Amazon but that would be something very difficult to turn down. |
|
I used to work for a company who used them, for a pretty good reason, but:
1. they paid a BIG premium for the non-compete. Employees who were required to sign them got very, very large raises
2. they would pay a good portion of your salary for the duration of the non-compete period, if you left the company
That's how it's done. A company as profitable as Amazon shouldn't really have a problem with that.