We have plenty of other websites to order from: fnac, darty, ruducommerce, cdiscount, etc.
This is going to be good for the french economy, and a good message to american giants that they are not above the law.
I find it hilarious, and a bit sad at the same time.
I'm Canadian and I've seen that the US tends to let companies do anything, provided they funnel enough campaign funding to politicians via lobbying
basically legalized bribes
The law here doesn't forbid to ship non-essential items, it only forces to protect your workers.
> The $1.1 trillion company was given 24 hours on Tuesday to comply with the ruling to sell only essential items such as food and hygiene products, and to upgrade its health-security procedures.
https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/la-justice-demand...
> stop the delivery of non-essential products until is put in place an evaluation of the risks and measures necessary to protect the employees health
https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/amazon-va-fermer-...
> order the online shop to limit itself to sell "essential products" (food, hygiene or medical) as long as the sanitary risks of the activity in the warehouse haven't been evaluated
Edit: better source
https://www.lesechos.fr/economie-france/social/coronavirus-l...
>But the American e-commerce giant was condemned to "restrict the activities of [its] warehouses to receiving goods, preparing and shipping orders for food, hygiene and medical products", "until the company has carried out, with the participation of employee representatives, an assessment of the occupational risks inherent in the Covid-19 epidemic in all of its distribution centres and the resulting measures".
This was phrased as a threat in the article title, but I don't see how Amazon had any choice until implementation of measures is either done or they have an answer to a court appeal. Likewise, there could be a case to be made that measures should already be implemented, but there is no documentation in the article over what progress there has already happened. Per this court order and event, I again don't see another response by them.
My understanding per the article is that this is not about applying a uniform set of safety standards, so there is no legal template we as outsiders can use - say, the safety standards implemented by their French competitors - to judge whether this order is or is not "fair". I also don't think it is my place to judge. Instead, Amazon has the right to determine whether or not they provide service within a country under that country's laws, and to raise awareness if _they_ feel the judicial system is giving illegal preferential treatment disguised in the context of crisis response. I don't see that as happening here either, though - at least not yet.
Why should human beings, when at work, not have all of their human rights?
The obvious answer, to me, is that the hiring and firing involves the abstraction of the company, and is not predominantly a product of a human, but a system. When a manager fires someone, they're not acting as an individual human being, just as when a police officer coerces or shoots someone they aren't doing it based on universal rules for people.
Your argument makes more sense when applied to a sole proprietor. And I think that the legal system recognizes this sort of thing because it makes sense. For instance, if you are renting out a room in your home, you aren't held to the same non-discrimination requirements (in the US) as otherwise.
Are you sure about that?
It's a very common if not universal complaint among libertarian anarchist types that police and/or other government employees shouldn't be subject to different rules from the rest of us. It seems obvious that like it or not, they are in present society.
I'm not suggesting I'm in favor or against it, just acknowledging that the rules for what's acceptable depend on what collective entity you're part of. It doesn't seem peculiar to me if there are always non-individual responsibilities to go with non-individual powers.
This is why you hear the common police trope of “I feared for my life”.
In practice, of course, the prosecutors will aggressively prosecute people defending their own homes from intruders, and fail to prosecute police engaging in premeditated murder; but that of course is a different story. The legal framework, in theory, provides them no special privileges to kill.
However, even if they weren't, it's irrelevant to my point, that people, including but not limited to the police, have powers that come from their membership in an abstract entity, and it's perfectly natural for them to have regulation of those privileges as well.