81–90 of 206 posts
I can’t answer your specific question, but I would really encourage you to think more about the AWS offer. Having spent a decade at Amazon, across several organizations, I don’t recommend it as a place to work. There was a NYTimes article about the company in 2015. Everything there still reflects the day to day culture of the company. For me Amazon took an unprecedented toll on my mental and physical health. I did ea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they live in California where non competes are not enforceable.
Does that include non-competes signed before you moved? Could your plan be to quit and move to CA?
I can’t answer your specific question, but I would really encourage you to think more about the AWS offer. Having spent a decade at Amazon, across several organizations, I don’t recommend it as a place to work. There was a NYTimes article about the company in 2015. Everything there still reflects the day to day culture of the company. For me Amazon took an unprecedented toll on my mental and physical health. I did ea…
I'm there right now and this is very true.
It isn't even a hidden truth about working there. In fact, the company has a set of principles [0] that are necessary to adopt and use to justify all decisions you make or feedback you give to others.
And missing from this set of principles? Any mention of the humanity of those you are leading. The only empathy encouraged is for the customer. It's a cold cold place to work.
[0] https://leaders.com/articles/leadership/amazon-leadership-pr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [in France] you need to be paid during the non compete period (at least 1/3 of your compensation or something like this) Oh that's interesting. That is the first time I've seen a justifiable contractual consideration on the employer's side for a non-compete.
It’s the same rule as California… you can have a non-compete, but that time has to be paid for separately than your normal wages.
Who's to say where you work after you leave one employer and go to another?
What would be the downside of banning all non-competes (no exceptions) at the Federal level?
Big companies love the free market, except when it means they have to pay more money to employees...
The turnover rate is extremely high at Amazon. I don't even consider my non-compete clause when looking at other roles. If you're really worried then don't update your linkedin right away when you leave. After a few months no one will notice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am genuinely curious -- what _are_ the top-five awful things in your mind?
I think #'s 1 & 2 have to be 1) stack ranking & forced PIPs, and 2) comp policies overall (the stock vesting schedule being part of it, the bonus program covering the first two years being another, and the [until this year] low base salary cap being a third).
I’m not now and never have been an Amazon employee, but the bonus plan just seems sensible to me.
The only time I would ever sign a noncompete like that is if it came with 18 months of severance pay. That's ludicrous.
That sums up non competes in Europe. Usually companies are required to pay 25%-75% of a former employee's salary in order to make a non compete clause enforceable.
Tell HN: anyone with good knowledge about something like this will not tell you on Hacker News. Probably not even in private. Think about it: if you had issues with AWS related to your non-compete, you probably reached some form of agreement or settlement. I'd assume in a large number of these cases, part of the agreement is to not disclose anything about it in public. Take my two cents: talk to a good, really good,…