I don't doubt that the author had a negative career experience at Amazon, but his account doesn't present as credible. The associations he makes between action and intent do not compute in many places. There are things that are misunderstood or factually wrong.

- "Amazon Connect." The program is called Connections. Every employee gets a multiple choice question every day. You never submit specific comments about a manager. It's truly high level stuff. "Does your manager help clear obstacles for you?" "How many teams do you need to work with to get something done?" "Are you achieving your career goals" "Are you accruing tech debt?". Responses are anonymous and the results are not shown once the population gets below 4 or 5 total responses.

Maybe some rogue Connections employee is sharing data--they should be fired if they are. But it's wildly against policy and the idea that a manager would care enough to go find out what an individual employees response is seems off. Who has time and the individual data points don't matter that much.

It's just good macro level data. It's great to have a pulse on what's working in a team and what isn't. It's actually a great way to find where teams aren't happy with their manager. Call it a bad manager locating device. That Connections is the triggering point seems improbable.

- His manager asked HR how to prevent them from receiving immigration benefits. Seems very off. Individual managers do very little w/ respect to immigration. Employees interact directly with the company's immigration department and lawyers. Managers approve green card sponsorship and work with employees where they have immigration challenges like renewals or home country returns. His manager didn't ask HR how to do this unless he was seeking his own performance problem.

- Transfers. With few exceptions, Amazon has one of the most liberal transfer programs you can find. Don't like your job on your first day, you can apply to a new one. You cannot link transferring to any conditions involving spouses or other external factors. You can be blocked from transferring if your current manager has flagged you as having an active performance problem, and you can appeal that block itself. You cannot be prevented from transferring for any other reason than performance. If the author was blocked from transferring to another role, it's only due to performance.

- Working from home. Amazon's a pretty in-person culture, but people work from home. Some teams have different norms. A manager might discourage an employee who was struggling performance-wise from working from home, if, for example, they had done so previously with limited results. It's not a rule, but people use common sense when people are scuffling, particularly if them being around others will help them avoid getting stuck.

- Pivot is a process where people who have been identified as having performance problems can appeal this determination. If you lose the Pivot appeal, you then go through the usual performance improvement plan dance that most companies use. An employee's case is heard by three peers (people in the same job role) or a manager who manages people in that job role. Which appeal choice is up to the employee. Most people choose peers and more people win their appeal than lose. Three independent peers agreed with his manager that he had performance problems. That's the only way you lose a Pivot appeal.

Bottom line, it seems likely the person in question was not performing at the level needed. They don't see that and don't agree. Most people who aren't performing don't agree. They began having the expected performance management interactions with their manager and it sounds like many wires were crossed along the way. Did they have a demon manager? Maybe. Some level of Dunning-Kruger seems like a more likely cause. It's a big company with lots of great jobs and people who enjoy them, ymmv.