They were never going to to begin with. You're an ignoramus to believe otherwise.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
On what grounds could one sue?
Probably under data privacy laws.
I imagine it would be quite hard to prove real damages with a price-tag attached.
They don't need to show financial hardship:
Google argued the point was moot because consumers suffered no financial hardship due to the practice. The UK's Court of Appeal disagreed. According to the court's judgment:
"These claims raise serious issues which merit a trial. They concern what is alleged to have been the secret and blanket tracking and collation of information, often of an extremely private nature [...] about and associated with the claimants' Internet use, and the subsequent use of that information for about nine months. The case relates to the anxiety and distress this intrusion upon autonomy has caused."
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.
Well, if the non-compete clause is part of a (or even the) reasonable option, then what's the problem?
The problem is that the non-compete is not reasonable. Are you really such a pro-corporation psychopath not to see that?
And it is not reasonable, then your statement is simply not true.
Yeah, because being unemployed and homeless is clearly a reasonable choice. NOT.
Fortunately, we don't need to decide it here for all — everyone can make their own choice.
Except there isn't always a choice. People need a job and they shouldn't be held to onerous terms just because of that.
Yup. All the lawyer has to do is find all zero of the warehouse workers that were actually sued or damaged in any way.
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.
Remember this isn't a criminal offense.
No one said it was.
Amazon would pay more than they could recover pretty much every day the court trial went on. Also, there might actually be enough push-back if they tried to change laws.
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.
it might be deliberate, so said workers don't go describing how the robots work.
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.
That still assumes the violation is noticed and acted upon.
Sure, but most people are risk averse. They aren't going to tempt being sued.
Seriously, how likely do you think it will be for a former employer to keep track of their ex-employees so closely that this would be a serious issue?
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.
Then don't sign it!
Right, it's not like people need money to buy food, shelter, etc. Fucking bastards should just be homeless.
You don't have a right to a job, a job is a privilege.
Maybe in your psychotic world view. Many people in the world don't share your viewpoint.
Look, if they offered you a job at a some ridiculous minimum salary like $20K a year, you would say no.
Not if the other choice is to become destitute and homelesss.
The fact that you are hungry for work is not Amazon's or any other employers problem.
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.
As for the nature of illegal conditions in a contract, that's why contracts usually have clauses in them that state that if any part of the contract is deemed unenforceable, the rest of the contract remains in-effect.
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.
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.
Last time I checked non-competes were not really allowed in my state either, and my guess is that an attempt at enforcing one against a lowly hourly laborer would be laughed out of court.
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.
On $89 billion dollar revenues, expenditures exceeded that figure; they lost $240 million last fiscal year.
That "loss" was due to the fact that Amazon basically reinvests pretty much all of their revenue back in the company.
Million dollar fines would definitely hurt Amazon.
No, it wouldn't. They would simply reinvest a fraction of a fraction of a percent less back into the company.
Did you forget your sarcasm tag?