That's not the best part. The best part is that somebody who directly reported to Jeff Bezos essentially told the team to go ahead and keep lying to the customer in order to "maximize free cash flow for the device". Which isn't something you can spin into yet another "rogue employee" case in which "we'll review our policies".

The division head asked something like "are we doing the right thing here?", and also said something like "we need to make money".

From the transcript provided it sounded like he didn't have the complete information about how they were screwing Discovery over: it sounded more like he was told that the campaign was costing Discovery more than Discovery had expected, but the plan was for Amazon to tell Discovery that they wanted to use money Discovery had already budgeted (and spent?) with Amazon but hadn't received a complete campaign for.

I've seen that kind of deal done before, and there isn't anything wrong with it provided both parties are transparent about it.

That's not the message I get from "At the end of the day, you should do what you need to do to maximize free cash flow for the device." The priorities are clear.

Because, you know, that could happen... 'some day'.

Whenever you think your boss is telling you to do something wrong, the best possible thing you can do is to write them a letter (and keep a copy) explaining how you think it's wrong, and that you want them to confirm that they want you to do it. If they refuse to confirm it, don't do it. People do actually have free will, you know.

You forgot the part where, after all that is said he goes "wink, wink".

Right -- just like they have the "free will" to decide to keep their jobs (and stay on the fast track). From the context, it's pretty darned clear what JB expected his subordinates to "freely decide" in this case.

Not really. The company can add any stupid clause it wants to the contract, but in the vast majority of states which allow NCA at all for employees they're heavily restricted in time and space, and must not prevent employees from earning a living.

In Washington State, NCAs are enforceable if they're "validly formed and reasonable" (Racine v. Bender), although a big issue there is you have to go to court to see whether this specific NCA is enforceable or not. I would guess it's not (because it's completely unreasonable), and Amazon's behaviour is not entirely dissimilar to SLAPP.

edit: in fact, Amazon was essentially told to fuck off in what seems to be a different NCA case: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a5cde10f-9ca3-...

> When Amazon learned that Mr. Powers joined Google, it first engaged in discussions with Google about Mr. Powers' employment. Following those discussions, Amazon sought injunctive relief through a Washington state court. After Mr. Powers successfully removed the case to a Federal District Court in Washington, Amazon moved for a preliminary injunction against Mr. Powers to enforce the non-compete restrictions.

> The court denied most of Amazon's requests, and upheld the non-compete restriction only to the extent that it prohibited Mr. Powers, for a period of 9 months from the date he last had access to Amazon confidential information, from servicing any customer as to which he had obtained confidential information* during his employment at Amazon (this restriction was essentially the same restriction as the one Mr. Power voluntarily agreed to upon joining Google).

> […]

> With respect to the validity of the non-compete restrictions, the court next determined that the restrictions were enforceable only to the extent that they sought to prevent Mr. Powers from working with his former Amazon customers. The court also determined, however, that Amazon's attempt to uphold the more general "worldwide" ban against competition — i.e., not tied to specific customers — was unenforceable because it was unreasonable and Amazon failed to show how such a restriction was necessary to protect its business.

(emphasis mine)

To me the entire requirement of 'consideration' falls flat on its face where they've essentially webbed a case of ruining someone's livelihood by preventing them from finding work after termination all the while giving a plainly inadequate severance.

"Munira was forced to admit under oath in deposition, several months after my termination, that she falsified her educational record on her resume to Amazon and all her previous employers - claiming to have earned a Bachelors and Masters degree in Computer Science from Stanford when in fact she earned no degrees at all."

"And in fact, even after finding out about Munira’s lies regarding her educational background and other issues I raised before my termination, Jeff Blackburn represented in his deposition that Munira was given a promotion, even though according to Amazon’s policies, falsification of personnel records is a Tier 1 offense likely resulting in immediate termination"

The letter reads awesomely, totally like a good book.

> At the end of the day. You should do what you need to do to maximize free cash flow for the device. Do what you need to do to make more money

Well, yes, we assume you would be aware that she hadn't yet completed a course (her Masters) she couldn't enroll in yet because she had not completed her undergraduate.

This is something my step-daughter could understand, especially with her education as a lawyer (not yet completed, as she is seven years old).

Doxing is when you find very personal information, such as place of residence. In can involve information about the workspace, Linked-in profile or so forth - but only in the case that the victim is operating under a pseudonym and have not disclosed their true identity themselves.

What we are doing here is calling someone out on their bullshit in a public profile.

Honestly, calling this doxing is pretty accurate. Before that user posted her LinkedIn profile, she was an anonymous figure in this dispute which, frankly, was all that was relevant to HN. Now, through LinkedIn, she will potentially receive hate mail and, with an identifying image, is more likely to be pinpointed on other platforms which may reveal more personal information about her.

People should remember that there is a lot about this situation that they don't know. This man who was fired from Amazon may have a legitimate grievance and he may not. Things might look one way when described on paper, but could have seemed quite different in real life. We could be (and probably are) missing out on a lot of important details that only eye-witnesses could be aware of.

How was she anonymous when she was named in the article? Her LinkedIn profile is literally the first thing that comes up if you google her.

Actually, no. This is the key twist that changes the whole picture. It is only his editorializing that claims the point of the campaign was to convert 1-click defaults. But he is the only one claiming that. He himself notes that the campaign was not set up that way. It was set up to promote Discover card by rewarding all 1-click usage. Furthermore the response from Amazon notes that they reviewed the progress of the campaign with Discover and Discover was cool with continuing, provided it was narrowed to Fire users and capped at the original budget. [1]

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-lawsuit-kivin...

And who claims otherwise? From the article you referenced:

> Business Insider reached out to Amazon and Discover, neither commented.

I, personally, find it quite hard to believe that Discover would be gifting users $10 without any apparent benefit, not even branding! Also, if what you're saying is true, why hasn't Amazon shared the detailed statistics with Discover? Why have all his superiors acted in such shady ways (judging from the emails)?

Also, if anyone is doing shitty editorializing, its BI:

> He decides to stay home sick for the rest of the week

Because people decide to get sick, right.

I don't really see a point in providing BI as a reference, as it has no other sources than the original source.

There is of course some promotional benefit to that, and it's not unusual in the card industry. While some card benefits are conditionally offered to new signups (e.g. promo APR), most are offered to the entire class (e.g. cashback rewards).

The promotion was structured in a way where anyone with a Kindle, who used their Discover card to buy a digital good (e.g. mp3 or movie), would get a $10 Amazon Gift Card. The reason the good had to be digital is because to buy a digital good you need to use your 1-click default card, and Discover’s primary objective for this promotion was to get users who had a Discover card, to make it their 1-click default so Discover could be the card of choice for holiday shopping over the course of the fourth quarter. That was the only way Discover could justify spending $10 when someone ordered a $1 .mp3 music file.

[1] http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/mfp/cgi-bin/mfpalumni/may_view...

I'm still a little disturbed as to why I'm seeing her dragged through the mud on a top link on HN. We aren't a gossip site, so why is this "confidential" letter being shared amongst the community at this time? What context am I missing?

The use of Munira's real name isn't even necessary. S/he is just the hand of the corporation. It valuable for each HN reader to think about who Munira might be in their work place, and defend themselves appropriately.

I know this was Washington, and I'm unfamiliar with the laws there, but I know in California it's nearly impossible to enforce a non-compete clause. [Here's a good read on the topic.](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/noncompete-clause...)

I still think it's outrageous.

Actually, they can put in such a clause. There's a difference between "unenforceable" and "illegal". There's nothing to prevent Amazon from including such a clause in the contract, even if it is clearly unenforceable. The worst case scenario, from Amazon's perspective, is that a court simply rules that the clause is unenforceable (as happened in the example masklinn gave https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8600939 ).

The best case scenario is that Amazon can frighten an ex-employee with the threat of legal action if he accepts a job with a competitor. Even if the ex-employee knows that a court will likely rule the clause is unenforceable, he has to decide whether he wants to go to the hassle and expense of fighting Amazon in court.

Amazon could also use the clause as a pretext to dissuade potential employers from hiring the ex-employee. Again, while the potential employer might realise that the clause is unenforceable, they have to decide whether they want to take the risk of hiring someone who will then be sued by Amazon (while it may not affect the potential employer directly, the new employee will inevitably be distracted by the court case).

I would never recommend that anyone sign an employment contract with a non-compete clause, even if it's clearly unenforceable. Even setting aside the potential legal hassle if it goes to court, you want to think about why they've included such a clause in the contract. Either they don't realise that it's unenforceable (in which case you have to question how competent they are), or they know it's unenforceable but don't care (which suggests that they plan to use it to frighten/bully you, as described above).

Recently, I turned down a job because the company included a clause in the employment contract under which I would have been prevented from engaging in "any activity" that competed with the company (or its related companies), anywhere in the world, for two years after I left the company. In the relevant legal jurisdiction (Switzerland), non-compete clauses are legal but "must be appropriately restricted with regard to place, time and scope such that it does not unfairly compromise the employee’s future economic activity". This one clearly wasn't. Effectively, it would have prevented me from working in banking or fintech, which is pretty much all that I've done for the last 14 years. I consulted an employment lawyer, who confirmed that it would definitely be thrown out if it ever went to court, so I pushed back.

I have zero problem with clauses that prohibit me from poaching clients or hiring other employees but if a company's hiring me for my expertise and experience that I've gained before going to work for them, I don't think it's reasonable for them to try to prevent me from using that same expertise and experience at another company if I leave them.

In the end, they refused to remove or alter the clause, so I turned down the job.

One of my friends left a major hedge fund with a two year non-compete and hold me he would never even think of crossing their lawyers as they would stop at nothing to ruin his life as an example to others. The law real only helps you if you have the resources to use it.

And the NCC may still be done away with for being "unreasonable" e.g. it can not cover the whole country and prevent the former employee from working in the field.