"Motif ? Ils ont exprimé, sur les réseaux sociaux, une forme de soutien aux "gilets jaunes" "

I doubt that this is really the case though.

> Le Parisien cite l'exemple d'un employé qui aurait donné rendez-vous à des collègues "devant la porte de son lieu de travail pour partir bloquer un entrepôt voisin, à Lesquin", dans le Nord. Un autre aurait lancé : "Il faut du renfort et des palettes, les amis !"

Basically the guy organized with his co-workers to blockade a warehouse (I assume of Amazon).

I don't think they fired guys that vocally supported Yellow Vests demands. Those would be in the hundreds if not thousands. It seems to me like they fired trouble makers.

I have only a couple words: Good riddance. Saying this as someone who has been affected by blockades (in another country) and seen people, companies and business being affected and devastated by it.

There is a difference between complaining and blocking a road/access.

Yes, complaining does nothing (most if not all complaints die out in the political machinery), while blocking roads etc. usually tends to yield immediate results once those with power in society are affected themselves. Macron was forced to make a lot of concessions towards the poorer population.

If you want to make a political statement as ordinary citizen these days you need to do something with real measurable impact. While I don't think throwing molotovs on McDonald's is a viable path to solutions, grinding the infrastructure to a halt by mass protests/strikes certainly is.

There is a reason why there are democratic institutions. The correct way to do it, is to wait for the next election and elect your preferred president. You can also strike on your current job (at your own risk), leave your government job, leave the country.

Blocking a public road does not help anyone and makes you more of a pirate.

This is called a “general strike”, and as one of the few means for the working class to assert power even in supposedly democratic countries, it is indeed very cool

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_strike

Well, better than having a situation like in Germany where the "Agenda 2010" reforms created an entire class of people working full-time but effectively being poor, called "Arbeitsprekariat". French protests have so far succeeded to prevent the repeating of German mistakes.

> The correct way to do it, is to wait for the next election and elect your preferred president.

The problem in France was that they had two choices thanks to kick-out voting: either far-right Le Pen or neoliberal Macron. So many chose Macron, simply to prevent Le Pen from winning.

To say that Macron is the legitimate president wanted by the majority of French population is... a stretch.

Everyone wants a free meal, free health care, free education and cheap public transport. Plus a cushy government job. These things come at a cost. You can't let people make these decisions (unless you are in Switzerland where you get a majority of people voting against a free lunch).

Many people in France are trapped in pay-cheque to pay-cheque and have lots of financial problems. So any pay increase will "save" them and they'll vote of it.

You said the french protests succeeded. That's only true if Macron was preventing French people from accessing their wealth. If that's not the case then the French protests have succeeded at making the future much worse. At the expenses of having a few more pennies today.

Hell, there is even a very close example: Greece.

ps: I'm not saying that Macron is the savior of the French finances. I'm not sure if his reforms are legitimate. But France has lots of baggage to reform and had lost lots of its influential mojo. Time to downscale.

Greece (and Italy) are in no way comparable to France. Both countries have the historical problem of tax avoidance/evasion as a "public sport" which everyone from the small baker shop to the multi billion ship owner competes in, with a lot of organised crime/mafia added on top in Italy.

Both governments would have more than enough money to properly fund their citizens and their infrastructure if said citizens would pay their taxes.

> But France has lots of baggage to reform and had lost lots of its influential mojo. Time to downscale.

The question is, downscale but at what cost? Look at how much the "downscaling" aka the "Agenda 2010" in Germany cost... we lost the trust of a significant part of the population in the democratic system as a result and "gained" a relevant far-right party presence in parliaments.

France needs reforms and has been postponing them for decades. What Macron is trying to do is needed and long overdue.

France needs stability a lot more than reforms. As a country, France still has a highly educated population, great infrastructure, a rich internal market and a solid canvas of small, medium and large business. France should be seeking growth through innovation and investment rather than constantly tweaking its tax code. France is however deeply handicaped by the euro. It is in my opinion the first victim of German dumping (the Hartz reform).

The whole France needs reform mantra is more rooted in ideology than facts. Macron is a Blairite who would rather fight the German by similarly depressing wages rather than confront them directly. It is a losing situation for everyone except the employers and will only lead to more inequality and more poverty in Europe. But well, guess who financed Macron presidential campain...

That's why the country needs reforms. Because the chronic lack of growth leads to protests like the Yellow Vests's.

It is not handicaped by the Euro. The issue is systemic: Red tape, anti-business, anti-innovation, bloated public sector.

Now imagine a neighbor being disturbed by your noisy party but instead of asking you to turn it down or calling the Police, he welds your doors and windows shut and cuts your electricity. Now you tell me if the practical application of your own suggestion sounds reasonable.

In such case, your response would not have been entirely unreasonable.

These are honest questions, I'm genuinely curious how people here see it. Even if I can assume internet opinions are very different from real life ones.

You are always free to take any action you deem appropriate but you will also have to take the consequences. So you can block your employer's warehouse in protest for something but then why be surprised when the time comes to pay for it?

That being said, whether your response in the original hypothetical is reasonable is not the same thing as whether it is legal or moral. In all 3 hypothetical actions, the act is illegal. In some cases, a lesser illegal act is justified to prevent a greater legal act but the specifics of that depends on the jurisdiction.

So you can block your employer's warehouse in protest for something but then why be surprised when the time comes to pay for it?

In this case, both Amazon and the employees have violated the law. The law the employees violated was a lesser law than the numerous laws Amazon violated. Amazon is very likely to face a lawsuit in court and lose--the French are extremely protective of labor rights.

From the original poster:

> If you want to make a political statement as ordinary citizen these days you need to do something with real measurable impact.

i would add "maybe refrain from breaking the law". Encouraging people to take matters into their own hands is pretty much the worst advice you could give them. Not only will that not really change much (unless we're talking about a full blown revolution like overturning communism) but it will also put them in trouble. Who do you think will suffer more? Amazon? Or the guys who have to show up at the next employer as "those people that will sabotage your company whenever they consider it appropriate"?

> the numerous laws Amazon violated

But you're not willing to wait for the court to decide the matter.

> Amazon is very likely to face a lawsuit in court and lose--the French are extremely protective of labor rights.

If the expectation is that Amazon will lose anyway and justice will be done then the only reason to break the law and sabotage your workplace is not justice or prevention, it's revenge. You are actually not gaining anything from this but the satisfaction of causing damage. You know what was the perfectly acceptable way of "punishing" Amazon? Quitting and encouraging others to do it. Without enough employees Amazon loses money.

What's your argument supporting? That I'm wrong in saying that people should not take justice into their own hands?

Title: "Amazon licencie des salariés qui ont affiché leur soutien aux blocages des "gilets jaunes""

Which translates "Amazon sacks employees who publicly expressed their support for Yellow Vests' blockages"

They report that one posted the following on Facebook " "Bravo à tous pour le blocage d'Amazon", which translates to "Congratulations to all for blocking Amazon!" Another called on social media for people to join a blockage and to bring supplies to block the road.

To me that looks like a good and valid reason to sack an employee.

If I as an employee of Amazon, during work time, as an Amazon representative denounce Amazon, then yes sacking may be reasonable.

If I'm on my own time speaking as a private individual? I wouldn't say its reasonable to sack them for that.

I don't speak French and your translated text doesn't clarify either way.

Is that also a sacking offense?

Blocking the way in either direction is usually an offence (you can get arrested).

Blockading access to the site and impeding operations goes beyond legal/supportable picketing. This I do not support and would support an employer who sacks an employee for it.

"Amazon sacks employees who publicly expressed their support for Yellow Vests' blockages"

So that doesn't seem to be 'calling on people' to bring material as you wrote in your previous post. I'm also unsure if your post is referring to employees directly partaking in blockading? Please clarify we are on the same page here, because as far as I'm concerned, this is supporting, not partaking.

I wont argue with you regarding the nature of 'blockage' because I don't know but 'blockages' could mean picketing or blockading to me.

which translates roughly to: "It takes reinforcement and pallets, friends!"

That is what I read as "calling on people to bring blockade materials." (My French is somewhat halting and far from fluent, but I don't think I've mis-understood here.)

Pallets don't have a place in free speech/supportable picketing, IMO. They do have a place in illegal blockades.

Pallets certainly don't say blockade to me.

So again that could be read either way.

If it's just for fuel, I agree with your point.

What I really do not get is the support for employers and the lack of support for labour on this site. Why is this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_loyalty

It should be pretty obvious you can't compete with your employer. If you want to compete then quit. You can't steal their trade secrets even if it's off duty. There's lots of other things covered by the duty of loyalty concept and if you explore them they almost all make perfect sense. It easy to see how the world wouldn't function without it.

Of course, you're free to speak ill of your employer at any time. And they're free to fire you for anything they hear about.

It may be shortsighted of them to do so; with a good employer, you should be able to criticize in a productive way and work to change things. But that's not an issue of legality.

The user you replied to wrote: "Of course, you're free to speak ill of your employer at any time. And they're free to fire you for anything they hear about."

That's broadly how it is in France (there is obviously a threshold with regards to what you say)

Quick Google:

"Un salarié critiquant violemment la politique des dirigeants de son entreprise et dénigrant son employeur ainsi que d'autres salariés. Faute grave. (Chambre sociale, arrêt n° 10-16929 du 27 septembre 2011)"

Then when the case hits the courts the outcomes will be markedly different.

Imagine that you are the employer and an employee of yours, on their free time, goes around agitating others to explicitly hurt your company. Can't get any more nuanced that this.

If "hurt" means "anything that keeps me from making as much money as possible to the exclusion of other people's interests"...

I think you get where I'm going with this.

Am I duty bound to vote for, and encourage others to vote for, any party that would lower corporate taxes?

Do I have to (in this example) do all my shopping through Amazon, or am I also allowed to shop at competitors?

So yes, I think you can get more nuanced

Take your strawman back.

I didn't say "tangentially", I said "explicitly". Anything that is aimed directly at the company itself. Like suggesting to nail the office door shut to prevent any work from being done.

You wrote "to explicitly hurt your company". I'm not sure the word explicitly actually changes the meaning here. I could campaign to introduce a carbon tax. I'm not doing it to explicitly hurt my oil company employer. Even if I know it probably will at some level.

There's degrees of 'explicitness'. What about campaigning against fossil fuels if you work for an oil company? What about a car company? Theres a line, and I'm willing to bet it will differ from employee to employer.

But action was aimed not at just those 3 employees. It was clearly aimed at all employees who expressed support the Gilets Jaunes - to intimidate them from further action.

As such, it was a shot across the bow basically.

And your source is?

On the one hand they are socialist, on the other hand they are seen as the French version of Trump supporters, so people who would ordinarily overlook their antiestablishmentarisnim aren’t (damaging private property, blockades, etc.), but on the other hand government strong tactics (teargas, student arrests, which is usually decried).

In essence, they are conflicted because they identify with workers’ movements just not this workers’ movement.

A significant number of Yellow vests are on the far right or at least indeed a French version of Trump-ism.

So this makes it clear the modern left cares about politics more than labor in and of itself.

When other labor movements have Marxist elements people don’t typically say, yes, but they have a bunch of marxists too, otherwise I’d support them.

That is to say: There is no credible powerful force on the left.

The subtitle provides some info, stating that they were fired for showing a behavior that contradicts company values. Later on it says that the fired employees didn't respect their contractual obligations by instigating to block the warehouse.

To be honest I have to wonder what the balance is between freedom of speech and fulfilling your contractual obligation. I mean who's more right here? The employee who's free to state what's on their mind or the employer who's fires someone for trying to sabotage the workplace?

The one I have is titled: "Amazon licencie des salariés qui ont affiché leur soutien aux blocages des "gilets jaunes"".

That translates to "Amazon sacks employees who publicly expressed their support for Yellow Vests' blockages"

Now, that's clearly quite different from the title of this HN thread (Edit: which is "Amazon fire workers that supported the Yellow Jackets movement")

> Amazon licencie des salariés qui ont affiché leur soutien aux blocages des "gilets jaunes

Translation

> Amazon fires employees who have shown their support for the "yellow vests" blockades

HN title

> Amazon fires employees who supported “yellow vest” blockades of Amazon sites

I did not use Google Translate but I'm sure it says nothing about "publicly" since that word is completely missing from the article's title. The HN title is perfectly equivalent... now.

I assume the title of the thread was changed before both of our comments. Which makes my original question legitimate and also makes me wonder if the mismatch you see is caused by the wrong translation.

"Amazon fire workers that supported the Yellow Jackets movement"

vs.

"Amazon fires employees who supported “yellow vest” blockades of Amazon sites"

these people aren't part of being at the forefront of automation-innovation but are victims of it. If Amazon wouldn't have killed the bookstore and retail sector in large parts of rural France (and Europe), these employees wouldn't be working for Amazon. They work there because companies like Amazon fail to pay their taxes and are proprietary-algorithms which have drained all humanity and social cohesion (Uber, AirBNB et al).

Although I don't blame Amazon alone in this (companies like this are a symptom not the cause of our Capitalistic Technological Society, but I think whether this is illegal or not is beside the point and we'd be better off listening to their pain instead of siding with "the law". The Gilets Jaunes being called by the French state "Illegal" are a good example of why this form of protests works and drives home the message to these corporate overlords. Even an article like this fuels some rage during the coming "Act-XYZ" IMO the language of money is the only language these people/companies understand.

A shame they didn't think of better opsec for organizing this. Use a burner phone use signal and not some facebook account with your real name to spread the message. This is exactly how they'll get busted by their nanny-state and why the nanny-state is able to use language that otherwise is reserved for "terrorists" or threats to "civil order". Macron, the minister of interior, and their oligarch friends from Rothschild are the real crooks ... and unlike the protestors that risk losing their jobs, or their eyes from the police aggressive use of rubber bullets ("fireballs") and who have actual "skin in the game".

My point is that the law must change and these companies should be taxed accordingly so that the Precariat is lifted out of their precarious position. Unless this changes I fear that the only way forward is more protests (and violence).

No, you left all the important details out. Why are the 2-3 employees of this hypothetical small shop campaigning to block it? That matters.

Tax avoidance isn't to be blamed just on these mega-corps but our political system which in France parachutes people from these companies into politics and vice versa. E.g. don't hate the player hate the game, but it's still one-sided to point the finger at an external party just because Amazon pays the salaries of some of us here. As I wrote above - these companies are a symptom of a broken / rigged system which neglects the statistical outliers or fringe cases that aren't maximizing their profits. I'm such an outlier since I never shop on Amazon and I've watched my selection in bookstores dwindle over the past 2 decades ... Going to bookstores and spend my whole Friday/Sat there browsing paper-books was once my fav way to relax. Now everything needs to be ordered bc it's not in stock... And I blame Amazon for it the same way as I blame starfucks, Zara et al for killing the high-streets in every town in the world. There is no more point in traveling because every place looks the same. And even people think the same.

But again this isn't just about books but about total "disruption" without thinking about the effects to the existing social fabric. We're all just guniea pigs in this and the solution offered by BigTech is to fix all these problems with more BigTech.

Sign of the times...

There are actually still bookstores and other stores around to this day, in most regions.

As for taxes, that is another debate, but I don't see how Amazon paying more taxes would prevent people from working for Amazon?

Even small businesses may have several ways of reducing taxes?

What is the minimum income for considering the "What is the Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich" or whatever is the tax avoidance hype of the day?