Former Amazonian. I didn't renegotiate the non-competes and I wouldn't stress much about this.
To my knowledge, this is one of those overly broad statements they put into the contract because it's advantageous to them and to reserve the right to sue the "VP of something" who took the knowledge and ran away. They won't act on it for your regular employees because it costs them money to do so and developers _routinely_ jump ship, though they want you to know that they technically have the power to because you signed that contract.
Like others said, there are other problems with Amazon you might want to focus on. This one may not be worth fighting over, but you can use it as part of a response with multiple requests, to let them say no to something and accept your other requests.
> They won't act on it for your regular employees because it costs them money to do so and developers _routinely_ jump ship, though they want you to know that they technically have the power to because you signed that contract.
This kind of thinking is exactly why these clauses get worse and worse and worse over time, I'm afraid.
People should be prepared to argue the toss over every single line of an employment contract, and seek advice for every single line.
Sure, but it's prisoner's dilemma. In practice, the company almost always denies the request to remove the clause, and if I then refuse the offer, I'm worse off because few others are refusing offers over this clause. The only way we win here is if most people walk away, which they should, but they're not.
Anecdata: at a different FAANG, I requested a less important clause to be removed and the lawyers denied even that request. Lawyers will tell hiring managers to pass on a candidate in the name of protecting the company. They won't pass on everyone, but it's a long way to get there.
I think that having access to specialized legal council would have helped, but attorneys have a reputation of being expensive. I wish levels.fyi offered a legal service as well, in addition to their negotiation coaching service.
There is another strategy than asking them to remove it, though. Ask them to qualify it. I've done this in the past (a long time ago, mind you, and in the UK, where employers are still somewhat bound by decency as well as law). I was asked to sign an extensive NDA for a short period of employment, and I agreed, on the condition that I could decline to join any meeting that wasn't strictly related to the project I was hired on, and that the same NDA bound them when discussing my personal projects.
I am surprised by the many post who make this statement. I mean this is significant financial risk based on the notion of "I guess they won't really enforce it".
It's low risk high reward. I agree with you in principle, but in practice, it depends on how strong your negotiation position is. Mine was rather weak so most things I asked for were denied.
To my knowledge, this is one of those overly broad statements they put into the contract because it's advantageous to them and to reserve the right to sue the "VP of something" who took the knowledge and ran away. They won't act on it for your regular employees because it costs them money to do so and developers _routinely_ jump ship, though they want you to know that they technically have the power to because you signed that contract.
Like others said, there are other problems with Amazon you might want to focus on. This one may not be worth fighting over, but you can use it as part of a response with multiple requests, to let them say no to something and accept your other requests.