8 ms·
Not because they supported the Yellow Vests, as anyone is entitled to support an union or political party. They got sacked because they supported (on social me
by entity345 8y ago
Not because they supported the Yellow Vests, as anyone is entitled to support an union or political party.
They got sacked because they supported (on social media) the blocking of Amazon sites and warehouses.
My understanding of French law is that such actions are illegal to begin with and, obviously, a breach of your duties towards your employer.
The title of the article (in French) is explicit.
- zoobab 8y agoThe article says the motivation for firing them was that those employees have showned some support on social networks to the Yellow Vests movement: "Motif ? Ils ont exprimé, sur les réseaux sociaux, une forme de soutien aux "gilets jaunes" " I doubt that this is really the case though.
- entity345 8y agoBoth 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.
- benj111 8y agoSurely 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.
- sokoloff 8y agoI think calling on people to bring materials for the blockade of your employer is reason for sacking regardless of when the call was made.
- benj111 8y agoIsn't that what a picket is? Is that also a sacking offense?
- entity345 8y agoPicketing 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).
- sokoloff 8y agoPicketing 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.
- benj111 8y agoThe 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.
- sokoloff 8y agoFrom 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.
- csomar 8y agoThe 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.
- mschuster91 8y ago> 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.
- csomar 8y agoSounds 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.
- mschuster91 8y ago> 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.
- doktrin 8y agoI agree. The translated HN title is inaccurate. The article only goes so far as to mention two examples, so it's possible that some of the terminated employees did less egregious stuff - but based on the available data this is about more than simply voicing a political opinion.
- close04 8y agoThe French title of the article in front of me states pretty much to the letter what the HN translation states. Was the HN one changed in the meantime? 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?
- entity345 8y agoI'm not sure what article you have before your eyes, then. 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")
- huhtenberg 8y ago... which, for the record, is "Amazon fire workers that supported the Yellow Jackets movement"
- umanwizard 8y agoThe title of the thread seems to have changed: now it is 'Amazon fires employees who supported “yellow vest” blockades of Amazon sites'
- DyslexicAtheist 8y agoMy understanding of French law is that such actions are illegal to begin with and, obviously, a breach of your duties towards your employer. 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).
- gtirloni 8y agoIt's very simple to validate your hypothesis: if this was a small French shop and its 2-3 employees were campaigning on social media for people to block access to the shop, could the owner fire them for the same reason? Would it be imoral as well?
- DyslexicAtheist 8y agoyour validation perhaps ignores that a small french shop, being campaigned against by 2-3 people would never reach this scale?
- mc32 8y agoRegardless of the merits or lack of merits, the Yellow Vest movement lacks the general support worker-related social movements tend to have probably because they don’t perfectly align with mainstream accepted leftist ideology. 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.
- entity345 8y ago> On the one hand they are socialist A significant number of Yellow vests are on the far right or at least indeed a French version of Trump-ism.
- mc32 8y agoMy point is this workers’ movement is problematic for the left because they are a ‘90s labor movement, a pre WTO movement and don’t adhere to what the current left envisions as a proper labor movement despite having all the trappings of a labor movement they generally support. 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.
- entity345 8y agoThe problem, in France at least, is that the people on the left with currently the most support are leftists who support people like Maduro in Venezuela and seek to destroy capitalism... That is to say: There is no credible powerful force on the left.
- drugme 8y agoThey got sacked because they supported (on social media) the blocking of Amazon sites and warehouses 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.
- entity345 8y ago> It was clearly aimed at all employees who expressed support the Gilets Jaunes And your source is?