The title and the content are different. As I read through

> 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.

> 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.

Sounds good until everyone starts doing it and the whole country collapses. Cool isn't it?

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.

“Sounds good until everyone starts doing it and the whole country collapses. Cool isn't it?“

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

> Sounds good until everyone starts doing it and the whole country collapses.

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.

> 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.

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

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.

Macron is not "neoliberal"...

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

> France needs reforms and has been postponing them for decades.

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...

How do you achieve growth? That's the key issue.

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.

> 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

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.

To make your hypothetical match the facts of this situation, imagine that your neighbors had been doing that for months on end, ignored your requests to keep the volume down, and the police never did anything about it despite your repeated complaints.

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

But once you do it do you have a moral or legal claim on anything anymore? If the same neighbor beats you silly for ruining his party can you then go to the Police or court and ask them for help and justice? Can you say "but he was doing the same or worse"? Can you claim innocence because you unilaterally decided that you are in charge of settling the matter? How exactly do you decide what is the appropriate response?

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?

I don't understand your argument. The fact that you and/or your neighbor committed crimes against each other doesn't negate the crimes you have committed. You're both guilty and the police would likely arrest both of you.

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.

My argument is that considering you are entitled to take action as you see fit and justifying it by you not getting results in other ways is NOT a useful or sustainable approach and as such it's not a helpful advice.

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?

Both the title and the article are clear that this support is specifically support for blockages of Amazon sites.

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.

Surely the answer is more nuanced?

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.

I think calling on people to bring materials for the blockade of your employer is reason for sacking regardless of when the call was made.

Isn't that what a picket is?

Is that also a sacking offense?

Picketing is simply standing on public land outside the gates, holding slogans.

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

Picketing is free speech; I fully support the act.

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.

The original post I was responding to said:

"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.

From the article: "Il faut du renfort et des palettes, les amis !"

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 are commonly broken up for firewood for pickets, especially in the middle of winter.

Pallets certainly don't say blockade to me.

So again that could be read either way.

If there's a blockade and that blockade is using pallet material, I would expect the ex-employee to lose that argument.

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

Agreed :)

I'm afraid it is not more nuanced. As a private individual you have duties to your employer and those duties do not stop when you leave office.

Your employer on the other has has duties to support political expression, free political expresion is a basic right in a democracy, as basic as it gets. Last time I checked, the Yellow Vests were not a prescribed movement.

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

Mmm. It's not a proscribed movement either.

Its quite reasonable to not support your employer if there are disagreements. But one might be at the wrong job in the first place then, although not all have the luxury to choose. That's why there are unions and strikes and stuff. It's quite strange Amazon would fire them. Google didn't fire anyone for not supporting or cheering for various government work. But I guess, warehouse workers have less rights/power, and that's what this comes down to. Which strangely enough might also be the reason the went on the streets in the first place.

It is true in the sense that there is a legal concept called "duty of loyalty"

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.

That's for shareholders or corporate officers. That doesn't seem to cover employee/employer relationships. Am I reading that wrong?

> Let's say that is true...I don't think it is, but let's say that it is...where does it end? Can I speak ill of them in public, like at a bar or cafe? What about on the phone? What if my employer contributes funds and energy to causes that are directly opposed to my well being?

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.

We're still talking about France, right? What employers get away with in the US isn't really relevant.

I didn't say "in the US" at any point. I was responding to someone suggesting that there was some kind of inherent right to speak ill of your employer with no repercussions.

It's the same in France. As some Amazon employees have discovered...

It's not even close to being the same.

The duties of an employee to his employers are essentially the same. And breaching those obligation is valid cause to be sacked.

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)"

Well, yeah, if you zoom out enough they are 'essentially', 'broadly' the same. If you use those modifiers I agree with you.

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

It's really quite simple.

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.

Depends on what "hurt" means, doesn't it? If you are "agitating" to organize political action, then the most reasonable course of action is to get the interested parties to a negotiating table and come to an agreement that works for everyone.

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

Hence the "explicitly" qualifier in my comment. Any hostile intent aimed directly at the company itself.

Does that mean a material loss of property or just potential loss of profits?

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

If I go around campaigning to introduce a carbon tax, reduce plastic use, some other initiative. Does my employer have some right to sack me because it might tangentially hit their bottom line?

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

> it might tangentially hit their bottom line

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.

How is it a straw man?

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.