Not enforceable, even in states that allow non-competes.
Also unlikely to attempt enforcement on Amaozn’s part. For temporary warehouse workers? Come on.
Then why do they do it? Surely it would be cheaper and easier for them to make the contract simpler. I will propose a theory: they are hoping that employees self-enforce or that it otherwise frightens employees into behaving in a particular way. However, I’m really not even sure why they would see this as a benefit? The only thing I can think of is that they actively want the temporary employees to remain unemployed to serve as a sort of backup pool, allowing them to bring someone in quickly if need be. To me, this sounds kind of like the crowd of men outside the gates of the meatpacking plant in “The Jungle”. Any better theories?
It’s simple rule by fear.
A warehouse worker can’t afford a lawyer to challenge a noncompete. A warehouse worker who thinks losing their job means losing months of work is a worker that won’t complain about poor working conditions or miss work for any reason.
Then why do they do it?
Easy answer: It doesn’t cost them anything to do it, they won’t lose any applicants because of it (most likely), and a lawyer somewhere thought it was a good idea.