Then require them to sign a non-disclosure agreement if it's really about the proprietary knowledge. A non-disclosure agreement in no way necessitates an 18-month non-compete.

The problem is that the non-compete is not reasonable. Are you really such a pro-corporation psychopath not to see that?

Yeah, because being unemployed and homeless is clearly a reasonable choice. NOT.

Except there isn't always a choice. People need a job and they shouldn't be held to onerous terms just because of that.

Yeah and like in most cases Amazon would pay out what amounts to 10s of dollars per person while having raked in billions in revenue. It'd be a slap on the wrist at best.

No one said it was.

So what? Corporations spend tons of money dragging on court cases to attempt to bleed dry the people suing them. Insurance companies are notorious for it. Plus, Amazon has billions in money they can bring to bear.

Then they would only have them sign a non-disclosure agreement, which is not the same as a non-compete, if that were really the motive.

Sure, but most people are risk averse. They aren't going to tempt being sued.

Probably not likely as it is mostly a scare tactic. But to claim that none of the workers are going to be influenced by its presence in their employment contract is silly.

Right, it's not like people need money to buy food, shelter, etc. Fucking bastards should just be homeless.

Maybe in your psychotic world view. Many people in the world don't share your viewpoint.

Not if the other choice is to become destitute and homelesss.

It also doesn't give Amazon or any employer the right to try to get you to sign away basic rights that many US states have mandated are rights.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think any of us can really say how it will effect any single worker. I just know that everywhere I've worked where such a clause is required as part of a contract that it did have a visible impact on the willingness of people in wanting to leave for fear of the clause being enforced.

Which itself is not always a legal condition. There are plenty of instances were the entire contract is thrown out due to the presence of illegal clauses.

Yup. All the lawyer has to do is find all zero of the warehouse workers that were actually sued or damaged in any way.

I realize that we are all supposed to be outraged, and equate this to the blood of the workers being used to lubricate the machinery of capitalism. But this is just some standard legal boilerplate, that nobody noticed before, because it has no actual real world consequences.

Unfortunately not enough people go union. So many people have bought into the corporate bs about unions (though some of it is the fault of unions and well-deserved) that they actively work against their own interests. Combined with enormous amounts of pro-employer/pro-corporation statutory law and case law basically has created a huge imbalance when it comes to workers' rights.

Maybe in your state. But there are plenty of US states where the issue isn't so cut-and-dry. And there is plenty of pro-employer case law precedent that can be brought to bear.

Signed contracts are deemed unenforceable all the time. It's called an illegal agreement and there is hundreds of years of common law precedent around it. You're an idiot.

That "loss" was due to the fact that Amazon basically reinvests pretty much all of their revenue back in the company.

No, it wouldn't. They would simply reinvest a fraction of a fraction of a percent less back into the company.