7 ms·

And all those other websites should have to comply with the exact same restrictions or shut down. The law should not be applied unequally to just one company.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
frockington1 7y ago
Europe is desperately trying to feed domestic growth. I'm not trying to justify their actions, but I think it might explain some of the lopsided laws
- brynjolf 7y ago
  Or rather we don't agree with the notion that companies stand above the laws of a country. The USA has insane bias towards companies to the extent they get better benefit as people and even qualify as people.
  - dwaite 7y ago
    Obviously $1mil per infraction is a bit lopsided when the definition of which products are infracting is not clearly spelled out. Likewise, coordinating a review and implementing all measures in a 24h period is obviously not feasible when that hasn't happened over the last month(s). 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.
  - sneak 7y ago
    Companies are made of people; it makes sense that the assemblage would have the same rights as the pieces.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      But it doesn't; no collective entity is equivalent to its pieces. In law or in practice. It's only an analogy.
      - sneak 7y ago
        Let me put it another way: companies don’t exist, they can’t act or think. Why should human beings, when at work, not have all of their human rights?
        perl4ever 7y ago
        I have to guess at what you're referring to, since you're not specific, but let's say for example, you're asking why a company should be regulated in hiring and firing, since freedom of association is a human right. 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.
        sneak 7y ago
        > just as when a police officer coerces or shoots someone they aren't doing it based on universal rules for people Are you sure about that?
        perl4ever 7y ago
benhurmarcel 7y ago
But they are already forced to comply to the same law. The law here doesn't forbid to ship non-essential items, it only forces to protect your workers.
- bhelkey 7y ago
  The article mentions, > 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.
  - benhurmarcel 7y ago
    French news is pretty clear on that. https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/la-justice-demande-a-amazon-de-limiter-son-activite-1367425 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-ses-entrepots-francais-pendant-une-semaine-1367476 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-la-justice-impose-a-amazon-de-reduire-drastiquement-son-activite-1194834 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".

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

frockington1 7y ago

Europe is desperately trying to feed domestic growth. I'm not trying to justify their actions, but I think it might explain some of the lopsided laws

brynjolf 7y ago
Or rather we don't agree with the notion that companies stand above the laws of a country. The USA has insane bias towards companies to the extent they get better benefit as people and even qualify as people.
- dwaite 7y ago
  Obviously $1mil per infraction is a bit lopsided when the definition of which products are infracting is not clearly spelled out. Likewise, coordinating a review and implementing all measures in a 24h period is obviously not feasible when that hasn't happened over the last month(s). 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.
- sneak 7y ago
  Companies are made of people; it makes sense that the assemblage would have the same rights as the pieces.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    But it doesn't; no collective entity is equivalent to its pieces. In law or in practice. It's only an analogy.
    - sneak 7y ago
      Let me put it another way: companies don’t exist, they can’t act or think. Why should human beings, when at work, not have all of their human rights?
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        I have to guess at what you're referring to, since you're not specific, but let's say for example, you're asking why a company should be regulated in hiring and firing, since freedom of association is a human right. 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.
        sneak 7y ago
        > just as when a police officer coerces or shoots someone they aren't doing it based on universal rules for people Are you sure about that?
        perl4ever 7y ago

benhurmarcel 7y ago

But they are already forced to comply to the same law. The law here doesn't forbid to ship non-essential items, it only forces to protect your workers.

bhelkey 7y ago
The article mentions, > 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.
- benhurmarcel 7y ago
  French news is pretty clear on that. https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/la-justice-demande-a-amazon-de-limiter-son-activite-1367425 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-ses-entrepots-francais-pendant-une-semaine-1367476 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-la-justice-impose-a-amazon-de-reduire-drastiquement-son-activite-1194834 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".