HN Explorer

Ask HN: Has anyone successfully renegotiated an AWS non-compete?

131 points by MeNotLawyer ↗ HN
I have an offer from AWS and as part of that they want me to sign a non-compete. I've signed non-competes in the past but reading through the AWS one is making me very nervous.

It basically limits me for working for a competitor of ALL of amazon for 18 months. Amazon does literally everything! I would pretty much be locked out of a job for 18 months if I left voluntarily or not.

All other non-competes I've signed have been scoped to just the areas of the business which I have confidential info about. This amazon non-compete make me worried I could be sued for even getting a job as a grocery bagger because it competes with their grocery chains?

Have any of you who work for AWS re-negotiated your non-competes? I would be ok signing a non-compete that is just limited to areas which I have confidential information about but I'm worried that asking the hiring manager about this might cause them to pull the offer.

205 comments

[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 249 ms ] thread
brodouevencode
Generally, are non-competes even enforceable? Especially in industries (like cloud providers) where there is a very small number of players.
rantallion
This. Every time I see the topic come up, there are countless examples of them being thrown out in court without a fight, usually because they're either too broad (like OP's example of not completing with the entirety of Amazon) or too long (18 months is nuts).
lesuorac
But do you or a future employer want to go to court over this?

Not having it in the first place is a way better solution.

harrisonjackson
The couple of times I've had friends or coworkers deal with non-competes it wasn't an issue of enforceability but rather are the employee AND the new employer willing to deal with it.

Both times the new company withdrew its employment offers. It is pretty terrible. It leaves the employee at a company they don't want to be at.

This was in Colorado and Texas FWIW

rosndo
Disclosing such a non-compete to a potential employer is such a dumb move that it’s pretty obvious why they would withdraw their offer.

Not because the non-compete is scary, but because the potential new hire is clearly an idiot.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
lucasmullens
I appreciate honest people, especially when they're honest even though it isn't in their best interest.
rosndo
Easy to say, but I doubt most people would actually let that appreciation affect hiring decisions.

A potential hire might also open up about their casual drug use. Would that be points in their favor vs. the other candidate who might very well also take drugs but chooses to not advertise this irrelevant detail to potential employers?

bradknowles
When being hired by the DoD, and interviewed for your security clearance, you damn well better tell them about your drug use. If you don't, then you're hiding something from them that could be used as a lever against you in the future by spies from another country.

And lying to your employer about things like drug use will get you fired faster than just about anything else.

Yes, I did start work in the basement of the Pentagon in 1989 for what was then the Defense Communications Agency. I will let you ascertain for yourself what I may have told them during that interview.

rosndo
Yes, obviously. Although admitting to casual drug use will pretty much ensure that you won’t get hired.

I think you know damn well that jobs requiring a security clearance are a special case. It really doesn’t make sense to bring this up in a general conversation about jobs.

> And lying to your employer about things like drug use will get you fired faster than just about anything else.

If your employer is the DoD, sure. If you work for a normal company, they’ll never find out unless you have a real problem (or are stupid enough to advertise it).

carimura
ouch. what awful advice. lying by omission is not only a terrible way to enter into a trusting relationship with a new employer but could also be committing fraud.
rosndo
Not advertising the fact that you previously signed a non-binding unenforceable noncompete is not lying by omission.
cycomanic
Except that as we heard from many here, they might very well be binding and enforceable in many states.
rosndo
>it wasn't an issue of enforceability
cycomanic
You literally said a "non-binding, unenforceable" so yes this post was about enforceability. You made a false statement with possible serious repercussions for a person following your advise. Now you backtrack that it wasn't about enforceability?
rosndo
What? I replied to a comment saying:

>it wasn't an issue of enforceability

I’m not backtracking on anything. Are you ok? If it wasn’t an issue of enforceability, I think we can reasonably assume that the noncompete was not enforceable. Unenforceability was the premise of this conversation, and that wasn’t introduced by me.

cycomanic
I think you should go back and read over the thread and how your replies can be understood. You replied to someone saying that lying by omission is terrible advice, by saying omitting signing a non-binding unenforceable nocompete is not lying. Yes two levels up someone said the main issue is not enforceability but the uncertainty that it gives potential future employers.

So I unterstand you made the leap that the nocompete is unenforceable and therefore no binding. That's a pretty big leap and also ignores the point. Enforceability is typically a grey area and decided by the courts, and therefore there is a risk associated with violating the nocompete (for employee and new employer), and many employers might want to avoid it. If you were referring to the case where the nocompete is clearly illegal (e.g. you're in california), yes there is no uncertainty, but then there is also no issue about disclosing it, because there is no associated risk. In that case I don't understand what you were trying to add to the discussion?

carimura
I'm not a lawyer, but having been a hiring manager in tech for 20+ years, "materiality" (whether what you are omitting is material) is in the eye of the beholder (side note: great video game) aka the hiring manager and enforceability of contracts is up to lawyers. Neither of those people are you, in this case. So. I commend you for the fierce independence and protection of your career, but I stand by my statement that parent comment is still awful advice.
harrisonjackson
The employee didn't disclose it.

The current employer tracked down the new company after they gave notice, found the hiring manager, and started making threats ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

bagels
In many states they are.
greyface-
Washington State (where Amazon is based) has a law invalidating non-competes in situations where the employee's W-2 compensation is $100k or lower. I would assume that this means lawmakers intend for them to be enforceable in situations where earnings exceed $100k.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.62.020

AdamJacobMuller
making everything below 100k completely unenforceable doesn't make everything above 100k enforceable, there are still considerable tests to if a non-compete is considered fair or not which governs it's enforceability.
csdreamer7
Amazon (and Microsoft) already sues former cloud employees. The question is not "is this enforceable?". The real question is "can you afford the legal fees?".

'Amazon is suing a cloud employee who left for Google, rekindling the debate over non-compete agreements' https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/11/aws-case-against-worker-who-...

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
gnopgnip
In WA, and many other states, and many countries outside of the US, yes it is enforceable.
zrail
The only time I would ever sign a noncompete like that is if it came with 18 months of severance pay. That's ludicrous.
mkl95
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.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
gnu8
Not high enough, it should be greater than 100% to penalize the employer more.
ceejayoz
Yep. If you don't want me to work, you can keep me at my current standard of living plus a penalty for the 18 month resume gap and potentially rusty skills.

If it's not worth that much to you, I probably don't possess enough super secret special sauce stuff for you to need a non-compete anyways.

mkl95
Well, you are supposed to get it every month until the clause expires, which can be a long time after you stopped working for them. I've only seen it happen to C-level guys of big companies.
raesene9
Caveat that doesn't (AFAIK) apply in the UK. Here it looks like un-payed non-competes are enforceable but if they're too long/too broad that would likely make them unenforceable.
drstewart
How does 25% of your salary "sum up" 18 months pay for 18 months non-compete?
mkl95
25-75% of your salary every month, until the clause expires. So if you were making $100k a year you are getting $25-75k a year until it expires.
kyleplum
It's something but honestly anything less than 100% is not great though. You can't easily go from living on 100k a year to 50k or less. It's still fulfilling the purpose of being an unfair deterrent from finding employment elsewhere.
mkl95
I had one of those clauses myself and I knew it was bull before I signed it. I have only seen it enforced once in the wild, to prevent a CEO from creating a competing company for a couple of years.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
otterley
If you’re asking us here in HN, then it’s very unlikely that you have the sort of negotiating power required to get any sizable company to approve a customized set of legal documents relating to your hire. Changes to the standard set of hiring paperwork often require multiple managers and lawyers to sign off on it. For most positions and candidates, the effort isn’t considered worth it. You can certainly ask, but don’t be surprised if you get a hard “sorry, but no” in response.

If you were being hired in as a VP or CxO and were extremely well known, that’d be one thing. But only a few people have that sort of privilege and clout.

(Disclaimer: I work for AWS but am not involved in the hiring process other than interviewing. My views may not represent those of my employer. Opinions are my own.)

randyrand
I was able to add an addendum to my rental agreement created by a fairly sizeable property manager.

Addendums are much easier for them to agree to.

otterley
First, a lease is not an employment agreement. Different situation.

Second, did the addendum directly contradict or void language in the standard form lease crafted by corporate legal? If not, there's probably more room for negotiation there.

Even in standard employee agreements, there's often an "invention disclosure form" that sort of operates as a built-in addendum for the new hire to fill out. This helps prevent the employer from claiming ownership over things the employee worked on prior to hire.

randyrand
Yes, it contradicted and voided certain ridiculous language in the first agreement.

I didn’t ask for much but I limited my liability back to common sense.

vorpalhex
I frequently get exceptions and changes to contracts. This has included me telling I flat out would not sign a particular document.

Never actually had it be a blocker or a problem. I'm just an engineer.

Lots of people will say it's a problem. They will claim it's going to be a big issue.

It isn't. Just stick to your guns. Be polite and be patient. Make it clear you have plenty of time available.

I had someone try to get my spouse to sign a contract without seeing it. The woman even had the gall to be offended when we declined without seeing it. After some hutzpah, we ended up literally sitting at this random employees desk for 20 minutes reading the contract before signing it.

Even that, while stupid, was not a big deal.

You always have the right to have a lawyer review documents. You can always take it home with you. You can always ask for changes. The worst they can do is say no - and usually they will say yes.

jandrese
When I signed the paperwork for my house I stopped to read all of it first. The escrow person then asked my wife if I was a lawyer or an engineer. Apparently nobody else ever reads them before signing.
otterley
Out of curiosity, what was the size of the largest employer you were able to negotiate an employment agreement with, and what was the term at issue?
usr1106
At an international corporation with 60k employees I was once able to leave an amendment to my contract unsigned. I told them straight that the amendment is impossible to fulfill and I won't sign it. Legal told me, oh then just put it into the paper shredder. The amendment granted me significant benefits. My line manager panicked and said you won't see the money. Howewer, the money appeared into my account as originally agreed even though I had not signed that part of the contract.

Yes, I was already an employee, which probably changed things. Still I was very surprised how easy it was. I would not count on that every time, especially if you are not an employee yet and like me not a really famous case that your employment would make headlines.

P.S. I did not shred it, but kept it for the case I would need it for any purpose. I never needed it, I was fully paid as agreed by email but never signed on paper.

jmpman
Move to California?
dbcurtis
For those that don’t understand the above comment: It is a rare non-compete that can be enforced in California in any meaningful way.
londons_explore
Amazon are struggling for engineers lately. There's a good chance if you just don't sign it they won't bat an eyelid.
bqmjjx0kac
I've been getting a few emails from Amazon recruiters weekly to both my personal and work emails.
rsstack
I complained to jeff@ about the spam from recruiters, after emailing them several times to stop contacting me - and even calling the recruiters on the phone once asking them to stop.

The final reply in my email thread with them: "I will take a look at these messages and will inform our recruiting team of your concern if these messages are found to be legitimate. Thank you again for sharing your concerns. I wish you well in your future endeavors!"

monksy
I had one message me on linked in, escalate to email, and then escalate to texting within 3 minutes. I didn't know about the priors but the cold text is unacceptable. The guy even tried to justify it by claiming "it's just text mate" and tried to dismiss my request not to be contacted by text if I don't know you.. An email to jeff@ had him apologizing in an hour.
bqmjjx0kac
That's hilarious, I had no idea his email was public. I have to wonder whether the response was written by an assistant, though.
rsstack
It used to be his semi-personal email many many years ago, part of his "open door policy" for employees, partners and customers. It was transformed into an escalated support inbox many years ago because it go too busy. Even though he isn't at Amazon anymore, the inbox remained open because people keep contacting it for issues that aren't being resolved through the proper channels.

I'll clarify: The "I" pronoun in the reply I got isn't referring to Mr. Bezos. The email is signed by an Amazon employee who I won't name for his privacy.

rc_mob
I did this once. Could never tell if HR was inept and didn't see it or if they just didn't care. Anyways that was a long time ago and no regrets from me.
rahimnathwani
I'm curious:

1. Do you live+work in a state where non-competes are enforceable?

2. Does the contract say they need to compensate you (e.g. some % of salary) for the period during which they want to enforce the non-compete?

forty
You should better consult a lawyer than a bunch of random people if this is important for you. Or better yet: not work for a company that tries to make you sign such agreements. And especially not this one :)

I don't know where you live. In my country (France) overly broad non compete are not enforceable, and also you need to be paid during the non compete period (at least 1/3 of your compensation or something like this), which means that employers will almost always waive them except for very rare exceptions.

MeNotLawyer
I'm curious then what people do when they leave AWS. Do they just not work for 18 months?
rsstack
They hope AWS won't enforce it. If you aren't very important (L7+, senior management), and you don't work on the _same exact_ project at a competitor, Amazon will probably not attempt to enforce it. Is it right that Amazon are doing this? Hell, no: they're awful for doing this. But that's not even one of the top-five awful things they do to employees.
atuladhar
I am genuinely curious -- what _are_ the top-five awful things in your mind?
eitally
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).
rsstack
For office workers, yeah. And disregard to work-life balance on many teams.

For warehouse and delivery workers... There's probably a chapter in the Bible just covering that.

sokoloff
The bonus program for the first two years seems like a good/balanced thing for Amazon and the employee (to cover the “missing triangle” of comp while RSU grants begin to stack).

I’m not now and never have been an Amazon employee, but the bonus plan just seems sensible to me.

eli
Or they live in California where non competes are not enforceable.
bombcar
Does that include non-competes signed before you moved? Could your plan be to quit and move to CA?
javajosh
The law applies to where you are, not where you were, so IANAL but yes, this would work. However, if you moved purely for this purpose, it might be interpreted as fraud. Also, Amazon may sue you in their home venue (Washington, or perhaps Delaware if they are incorporated there). If someone has access to Lexis Nexis it'd be interesting to see how many such cases Amazon has brought, and what happened.
sulam
I think it's based on where you are when you sign the agreement, not where you are when you leave. When you say the law applies to where you are, this is all in the action you're taking. The promise not to compete is the action in this case.

I am also NAL, but I don't think moving to CA gets you out of non-competes and I've seen evidence of this (one well covered story involved an Amazon exec going to a Bay Area company and getting sued).

jwsteigerwalt
It’s very possible you will not ultimately get the next job. Most competent firms that are near competitors will ask if you are bound by a non-compete as part of the recruiting process. Even if ultimately unenforceable, a “yes” could stop you right there. A “no” could be something problematic with the new employer down the road.
Throwawayaerlei
I don't think this can be emphasized enough, it's something I saw a few times in my career which was outside of California. Just having a non-compete that might apply with a former company is enough for many companies to hire someone else who's not got such entanglements. If that company is known for litigating them all the worse.
jandrese
How would your previous employer even know what you are working on in your new company? It's not like you are going to report back to them.
rsstack
If you're important (VP+), it will be in the news. Otherwise, maybe blog posts. They very rarely enforce this. They mostly try to pressure employees into staying at Amazon with these shitty tricks.
forty
I'm not sure, but I feel there might be companies that are not selling cloud hosting solutions ;)

Also, once again, do check the law where you live. It's very possible that non-compete only apply on stuff you worked on. For example, maybe if you did not work on S3 specifically, you might even be able to work on Google Cloud Storage if all you are considering are companies that make public clouds.

rsstack
> I'm not sure, but I feel there might be companies that are not selling cloud hosting solutions ;)

> It basically limits me for working for a competitor of ALL of amazon for 18 months.

Amazon have an incredible long-tail of badly-made products across the entire software market. They do a lot more than cloud hosting & book delivery.

CJefferson
Notice it doesn't say AWS, it says Amazon. That covers a lot more than cloud hosting solutions!
icedchai
They just ignore it, probably. It’s like those agreements that prohibit you from having other jobs. Forget about it.
infogulch
> [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.

cortesoft
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.
d4mi3n
This is probably one of the biggest reasons I'm unlikely to leave the state until other parts of the US make similar determinations. It boggles me that we allow employers to have so much control over an employees life after they have left said organization.
lotsofpulp
We almost had the same in Washington state until the big tech companies lobbied (i.e. bribed) corrupt politicians for the law to only apply to those earning under $100k.

https://lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/workplace-policies/Non-Com...

labster
So non-competes are only for people who can afford a house. I guess it makes sense to give up some freedom for the privilege of owning property.
mateo1
The reasoning obviously is to protect low earners from employers who abuse non-competes. Non-competes are not a complete insanity, as long as the workforce they apply to has (pragmatically, not just theoretically) the ability to chose where to work. And of course they have to acquire some transferable skills or knowledge thanks to their employment.

These things are generally very unlikely to happen when the employee is a low earner.

lotsofpulp
The fact that California has no problem with pumping out innovation and globally important companies even with a total non compete ban shows that there is zero reason for any employer to have that additional power over an employee. I would even say the non compete ban contributes to CA’s success.

To really drive home how much of an advantage employers have, even with a non compete ban, employers in California were found to be colluding to suppress employees’ wages.

https://www.latimes.com/80014970-132.html

belval
For all but some very egregious cases this will not be enforced. AWS lost a bunch of VP-level execs and they went to work at Microsoft... If they didn't use it against them they won't use it against anyone.
d4mi3n
I agree, but it's still problematic. A couple concerns off the top of my head:

1. This can impact behavior of the labor force despite lack of enforcement. Not everyone can afford to pay a lawyer to review their employment contract, and not everyone will have the knowledge to know if such terms are applicable or enforceable to their situation. This causes fear and hesitancy which in turn drives behavior and decision making.

2. If you're unfortunate enough, there's nothing stopping a company from attempting to make an example out of you. Even knowing it's unlikely a former employer will come after you, why should individuals be forced to take on that risk to earn a living?

xienze
You really have to “be somebody” in order to have a non-compete enforced against you. If you’re like most people the company you left couldn’t care less where you go. Yes yes, there’s exceptions, but in general they’re rarely enforced.
jandrese
But if your old boss was a total dick and that's why you left then he might try to enforce it. Leaving yourself open to expensive legal action isn't smart. Even though they would likely lose the case (noncompetes are on shaky legal footing) you still lose many hours and legal fees fighting it.
cosmodisk
Even being 'somebody' may not enforce it. A few years ago Salesforce hired so many execs from Microsoft that it looked like there's no end to it.
apostate
This is common in the financial industry above a certain level; it's called "garden leave".
NovemberWhiskey
No; that's different from a non-compete. The practice of "gardening leave" is giving an employee a relatively long notice period (say, 3 months). If the employee gives notice, the employer tells them to stay home during the notice period; they are still technically employed during that period, however.
apostate
Gotcha; never been subject to gardening leave myself, but I always assumed it exists for the same purpose as a noncompete, i.e. to provide a 'cooling off' period to lessen the competitive impact that the exiting employee can have by switching to another firm. I assumed that since it's been around a while in finance that the "paid noncompete" idea became a negotiated part of the comp.
tharkun__
So funny to hear this. 3 month notice periods (in either direction) are bog standard in parts of Europe. And it's entirely normal to just keep working, training your replacement/finishing off stuff.
apostate
I'm not sure that's quite the same (no clue if the garden leave terminology is used in the parts of Europe you refer to). https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gardening-leave.asp
tharkun__
That's my point about it being funny. In one place a 3 month notice period is considered a gardening leave for special higher level employees and you still basically get escorted out of the building.

In other parts of the world it is just the bog standard notice period and nobody is escorted out of any building and expected to keep working during that 3 month period.

pkilgore
I've heard of them in finance in the states, mostly, but I believe they do exist.
BrandoElFollito
I am French and discovered a few years ago that a non-compete could be one-sided.

I saw that on an offer and asked about the compensation, ready to negotiate at least 50% pay for that part.

The person on the other side was surprised, also when I asked if anyone actually signs this.

I do not understand how a non-compete compete for key people can be one sided.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
zeruch
If you are in certain states (e.g. California) non-comps are almost wholly unenforceable and many folks will happily sign them knowing even a company like AWS won't be able to do squat.

Jurisdiction matters, as non-comps are common, and many firms rely on a lack of knowing to pressure folks into behaving the way they like, regardless of actual legal sturdiness.

anonymousiam
Signing such an agreement for a California job might still affect your ability to relocate to another state for a position with a competitor.
sulam
I'd be surprised if their CA employment agreements even have the non-compete in them, and any halfway-competent lawyer will be able to redline that portion as un-enforceable. This is a bedrock rule in CA employment. If it had any enforceability at all, we would know.
jandrese
What's the punishment for companies that try to put illegal clauses in contracts? If you have the resources to fight it the clause gets nullified but that's about it. Companies aren't generally punished for abusive contracts, or at worst they get some tiny fine.

As long as this is the case they will continue to try pulling crap like this.

anonymousiam
I've never heard of any company being punished. I've been fortunate in my career and only ever signed one non-compete agreement. It was in California, and before such things had been struck down by the courts (1980). I took the time to read it before I signed, and it basically said that any invention I produce henceforth (even after my employment was terminated) would belong to Teledyne. I knew it would never stand up to scrutiny in court so I wasn't too worried about signing it.
jandrese
One clause I still see is the one where the company owns everything you make in off hours in your own time. It's blatant theft and yet they still try to get away with it.
hedgehog
Non-legal opinion: you are unlikely to be able to get the company to deviate from the standard agreements, they are enforceable in WA, and in practice they would have to show harms to really have any teeth on you besides making your life tediously miserable with legal paperwork. I am not a lawyer, if you want advice you should talk to an employment specialist who practices in your jurisdiction. If you are in WA and e-mail me I can recommend someone I've worked with in the past.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
johndfsgdgdfg
Google is notorious for treating their new hires an employees badly. It's not only a customer hostile company, it's also very hostile to its employees.
silicon2401
Talk to a lawyer or just say no. Whatever the lawyer costs you, it won't be as bad as getting yourself in a sticky situation because of the non compete. Or if you turn it down, you can definitely get a job elsewhere if you got an offer from amazon
bushbaba
Work in California as it is mostly not enforceable
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
mkl95
I can't give you legal advice, but I can ask you to consider if you really want to work for AWS. It may be a generic clause, but they are basically saying they don't trust you. Also telling recruiters of other FAANG / big corp / etc. you got an AWS offer should increase your leverage.
bradknowles
Non-competes are commonly used in most employment contracts.

If that's your measure of "are you really sure you want to work for this company", then I think I would ask if you're really sure that you want to work for ANY company. Or even just work at all.

TheKnack
Here's some info on the relevant law as it pertains to California (where AWS is based). TLDR: "non-compete agreements are not enforceable in California"

https://www.callahan-law.com/are-non-competes-enforceable-in...

If you live somewhere else, I don't know if California law would apply or your local laws, so like other said you should consult an attorney who specializes in this area.

greyface-
AWS is based in Seattle, Washington, not California.
vlovich123
AWS definitely has offices and employees in California. The enforcement is not about where you're headquartered but where the employee is determined to be working. An employee living full time in California would be protected.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer.

pcaharrier
Not necessarily. Many such contracts also contain a choice of law clause that specifies which state's laws will apply.
grumple
The same "not necessarily" would presumably apply to the choice of law clause as well, for example if California decided they didn't want a company attempting to evade their laws with such a clause, which presumably would be at the discretion of a judge who probably isn't too fond of that behavior.
gnopgnip
For agreements entered into after January 1, 2017, California Labor Code Section 925 clarifies that employers may not require employees––who primarily work and reside in California––to agree to forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses that select non-California forums and/or laws, unless such employee is “individually represented by legal counsel in negotiating the terms of an agreement.”
pcaharrier
Correct. California is its own beast when it comes to employment law and franchise law and a host of related issues.

Edit: and I glossed over the part about "employees living full time in California." My bad.

randyrand
You should ask for a list of known competitors. Examples.

Or you provide a list and ask them if they agree you cannot work at those.

colanderman
I'm not a lawyer, and this is almost certainly misguided advice. But when faced with the same, I requested (and got) in writing that the non-compete clause was nonnegotiable, hoping that, should push come to shove, the clause could be found legally non-binding as a contract of adhesion [1].

Also note that Massachusetts recently (2018) signed into law restrictions on non-competes. One of the major aspects is that such a clause provide "garden leave" pay for employees during their noncompete period. [2]

You can alternatively/also simply ask for more pay in compensation, claiming such a clause is non-standard in the field (personally, I've seen very few), and thus it's a material change to what was previously negotiated. That didn't work for me (I was already at the top of the salary range for the level I was assigned to), but since it doesn't involve lawyers, it's more likely to happen.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contrac...

[2] https://www.slnlaw.com/massachusetts-non-compete-act.html

fennecfoxen
The problem with "contract of adhesion" here is that while one term may have been non-negotiable for one of the parties, the contract as a whole likely wasn't, and you negotiated things such as pay.
alecco
Tell them this is significant to you and ask for, say, +30% of total comp to sign the contract in the current wording. This they will understand. If you say no or if you give reasons they will just try to make you change your mind and give you excuses. Don't waste your time.
MisterBastahrd
I think it should be federal law that any non-compete pays the employee salary and full benefits for time spent under the enforceable period of the non-compete if the employer tries to enforce it in court. If it's SO important that an employee not divulge any information that you need a contract for it, companies should have to pay for it.
cmckn
You're misreading the agreement (unless it's changed significantly very recently). Like any non-compete I've ever seen/signed, it only applies to products/services that:

> Employee worked on or supported, or about which Employee obtained or received Confidential Information.

Totally fair if you don't want to enter that agreement, but the language is pretty standard.

greyface-
Amazon can simply argue that all engineers receive Confidential Information about products/services that they did not work on, but were aware of due to company memos, access to internal documentation, etc.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
pcaharrier
Without seeing the clause verbatim, I also suspect there is a misreading going on here. Having dealt with noncompete clauses in a previous job, writing one like what the OP suggests is one of the surest ways to get a judge to find that the clause is unenforceable.
dbcurtis
What state are you in? What Amazon can enforce will vary widely from state to state. Ask a lawyer. I had all my non-compete questions about a particular situation covered in one phone call of 45 billable minutes. This does not have to be expensive if you get a specialist in this area of the law.
RcouF1uZ4gsC
What would be the downside of banning all non-competes (no exceptions) at the Federal level?
qbasic_forever
Companies have to increase wages as people job hop to seek better opportunities. Look at the Apple hiring/salary fixing fiasco that got Steve Jobs in hot water about a decade ago--Apple was actively colluding with all the tech companies to agree not to hire or poach employees so their salaries wouldn't rise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

Big companies love the free market, except when it means they have to pay more money to employees...