
Amazon threatens to suspend French deliveries after court order - yamrzou
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-15/amazon-threatens-to-suspend-french-deliveries-after-court-order
======
harryf
The other side of the story... [https://www.france24.com/en/20200414-french-
court-faults-ama...](https://www.france24.com/en/20200414-french-court-faults-
amazon-over-virus-safety-limits-deliveries) or
[https://www.ft.com/content/1ad863ef-
dc39-43a3-b714-e5ef3c4a8...](https://www.ft.com/content/1ad863ef-
dc39-43a3-b714-e5ef3c4a8e15)

> Laurent Degousee, of the SUD-Commerce union that was behind the complaint,
> acknowledged that Amazon had "not stood idly by" amid the crisis but had
> taken a "slew of measures without any evaluation".

> He said that the taking of temperatures had sometimes caused queues and thus
> risked possible infection.

So Amazon had the choice of either;

a) taking the court ruling seriously and doubling down on efforts to ensure
worker safety and working out what needs to be done to lift the suspension

or

b) raising a middle finger and threatening to suspend all deliveries, thereby
adding fuel to the notion that Amazon doesn't take worker safety seriously and
creating opposition in France that will now work on strategies for "what to do
if Amazon pulls out of our market?"

Which one seems like a smarter response?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _raising a middle finger and threatening to suspend all deliveries_

I don’t see this. The court gave a short deadline for meeting an ambiguous
target with respect to a complex international logistics network. Amazon’s
choices are to sloppily comply or halt until they can properly do so. They’re
choosing the latter.

That keeps warehouse workers safe. And it gives Amazon time to figure out how
to only ship that which the court would consider essential. The only loser is
the French consumer, and they (will eventually) have other options.

~~~
wpietri
Almost all laws and legal orders have some ambiguity to them. Sloppy
compliance is the correct choice both here and generally, because a)
demonstrates to the court that you broadly agree and will respect the court's
authority, and b) allows you to go about your business as much as possible.

Given Amazon's recent behaviors around worker protection, I expect their
action here is chosen for maximum drama, an attempt to pressure the French
government, and to warn other governments that they will disrupt the delivery
of essential supplies if they don't get their way. So I agree with harryh;
it's a middle finger.

It's been deeply disappointing to me. I've been on the fence with Amazon for a
while about labor issues. But their behavior recently has crossed a line. I
canceled my Prime membership yesterday. If they don't rapidly reform, it'll be
the end of my 23 years as a customer.

~~~
option_greek
If you are running the company, Sloppy compliance is never the correct choice.
It will add a unnecessary (from the company point of view) liability for the
future. Given the risk to the health of workers in this case, its not even the
correct moral choice. Suspension is bad for their revenues but is morally and
legally correct way forward.

~~~
matthewdgreen
I think it's amusing that Amazon knows exactly what it's doing with this
threat. France knows exactly what it's doing with this threat. The only people
who don't seem to understand what's happening are the commenters here on HN.

~~~
zapita
> _The only people who don 't seem to understand what's happening are the
> commenters here on HN._

Sadly this is true of almost every topic other than software engineering,
electronics and rockets.

~~~
lonelappde
And also software engineering, electronics, and rockets.

------
asdfasgasdgasdg
Doesn't seem like a threat? More of a recognition of the necessary
consequences of this particular order. If the court says to stop doing some
things, and the wheels are too big to be changed while in flight, then Amazon
should shut down for the time it takes to figure out how to comply. That's
just obeying the court, right?

~~~
ajross
Of course it's a "threat". Amazon doesn't want to shut down in France, they
just want not to be subject to this court order. France doesn't want Amazon to
shut down in France, they just want them to honor this court order. The only
reason you announce a policy that no one wants is as a negotiating tactic.
"Honor my desires or else the outcome will be worse for both of us" is,
logically, what "threat" means.

Now, no, Amazon can't possibly do what the order asks in 24 hours. But they
certainly could make a good faith attempt.

I made this point yesterday, but I remain amazed at the extent to which Amazon
let itself be painted the "bad guy" in all of this, simply by not being
willing to negotiate with their workers on an equal basis. A world where
Amazon had a healthy relationship with its unions isn't one where everyone
comes at them with a knife during a crisis trying to protect their workers.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
> But they certainly could make a good faith attempt.

In my understanding, court orders are not a polite requests. They are demands,
with the force of law standing behind them. You don't make good faith attempts
to comply with them. You comply, or risk severe consequences (in this case, 1M
euro/day). If Amazon can't comply in the time frame allowed, shutting down is
probably the right call both for their business and from a public morals
perspective.

~~~
ajross
> You don't make good faith attempts to comply with them.

Uh... "Good faith" is, _literally_ , the term of art used in the legal
profession to define the criteria for honoring a contract or order.

Obviously, no, the court could be a total jerk about it and demand ridiculous
things. But that's not the way it's supposed to work. The whole point behind
the "rule of law" is that we trust each other (Amazon, its unions, the courts)
to be reasonable, tell the truth, and honor our agreements in the spirit in
which they were made.

People who insist on looking like this as a war with combatants are the ones
who are missing the point. I mean, look, the court in France is trying to
protect workers. That's a good thing. You agree that's a good thing, right?

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
> "Good faith" is, literally, the term of art used in the legal profession to
> define the criteria for honoring a contract or order.

No. Honoring a contract and a good faith attempt to honor a contract are not
the same. A good faith attempt does not exempt you from the consequences of
failing to perform a contract or comply with a legal order. In some cases it
is a mitigating factor, but it is not by any means universal.

If the French court wanted Amazon to make a good faith attempt to do
something, that is something they could have ordered. But they ordered
compliance, not an attempt at compliance (as is their prerogative).

> Obviously, no, the court could be a total jerk about it and demand
> ridiculous things.

You mean like a 24h deadline for compliance with a large set of changes to
operations?

> The whole point behind the "rule of law" is that we trust each other
> (Amazon, its unions, the courts) to be reasonable, tell the truth, and honor
> our agreements in the spirit in which they were made.

Tbh I'm not seeing the connection between rule of law and social trust. You
can have high trust societies with less rule of law, and low trust societies
with more rule if law. They are separate, loosely connected dimensions.

> People who insist on looking like this as a war with combatants are the ones
> who are missing the point.

I am not such a person.

> I mean, look, the court in France is trying to protect workers. That's a
> good thing. You agree that's a good thing, right?

I'm not sure I could make any such blanket statement without knowing the state
before, the desired state as indicated by the court order, the evidentiary and
legal bases of the decision, etc. The impulse to protect the vulnerable is
good. The means by which societies choose to implement that impulse can cause
harm, and I judge actions by their results, not their causes.

~~~
ajross
You seem to be assuming that the court ordered something it knew was
impossible. That's, to borrow a phrase from the HN code of conduct, assuming
_bad faith_ on the part of the court. It seems much more likely to me that it
just made a mistake and wasn't itself trying to escalate a war. That's not
what courts do.

So... assuming the court thought this was a reasonable request, why shouldn't
Amazon just try to comply?

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
> You seem to be assuming that the court ordered something it knew was
> impossible.

Perhaps it did, or perhaps it didn't. I don't think it's very relevant whether
the court knew whether Amazon would be able to comply. It had its priorities,
and it ordered Amazon to abide by those priorities. That's something that's
perfectly within its rights to do.

But if the court _were_ interested in Amazon's ability to comply, then it
could have asked Amazon what it could and couldn't do in what time frame. It
did not ask, or at least discarded the response if it did ask, so presumably
its orders are not conditioned on Amazon's capabilities.

> That's, to borrow a phrase from the HN code of conduct, assuming bad faith
> on the part of the court. It seems much more likely to me that it just made
> a mistake and wasn't itself trying to escalate a war.

You seem really eager to assign good and bad faith and assumptions of the same
to various parties, including myself. I am not eager to do that. I am also not
willing to assume the court was incompetent or made a mistake. It gave an
order, and presumably it had an understanding of the possible range of effects
of that order. If it didn't, it could have availed itself of Amazon's thoughts
on the subject before issuing the order. I assume the court did know the
possible results, and it considers Amazon shutting down temporarily to be an
acceptable short term outcome, if necessary to protect worker health.

> So... assuming the court thought this was a reasonable request, why
> shouldn't Amazon just try to comply?

Because the court said they would be fined if they failed to comply. I'm not
making the connection on why Amazon's behavior should be conditioned on what
the court's view of the reasonableness of the request is. Surely Amazon's
behavior should first be conditioned on Amazon's view of the feasibility of
the request, the potential economic and political consequences of failure,
etc.?

------
frenchman99
They don't threaten, they obey the court that asked them to suspend deliveries
because employees were not properly cared for. Let's not turn things around.

Don't worry, if Amazon stops selling altogether, small businesses will be more
than happy to take back some market share.

~~~
elcomet
Except that they won't be able to meet demands, especially for important
products such as medical or safety products.

~~~
kerkeslager
Amazon isn't able to meet demand for medical or safety products. Or home
workout equipment. The only video game systems are from price gouging third
parties. They've only recently caught up on toilet paper.

I'm not sure why you think Amazon is somehow immune.

~~~
KMag
> I'm not sure why you think Amazon is somehow immune.

The GP didn't claim that Amazon could keep up with demand.

Their general point is the whole supply chain is straining, and shutting down
Amazon is going to exacerbate the issue. Maybe that's the right thing to do,
and maybe it isn't, but the broad consequences are clear.

Between COVID-19 and the US-China trade war, I hope we're all taking a long
hard look at supply chain diversity going foreword.

~~~
kerkeslager
> The GP didn't claim that Amazon could keep up with demand.

That's true, but GP seems to think that we need Amazon to solve a problem
which Amazon doesn't solve.

> Their general point is the whole supply chain is straining, and shutting
> down Amazon is going to exacerbate the issue. Maybe that's the right thing
> to do, and maybe it isn't, but the broad consequences are clear.

I don't think it's clear at all that shutting down Amazon will exacerbate the
issue, because I don't think "the whole supply chain" is the issue.
Specifically with medical supplies, the problem _isn 't_ that online retailers
can't get stock to customers quickly enough. The problem is that stock _doesn
't exist_. Unless Amazon decides to pivot into medical manufacturing, Amazon
isn't the solution to this problem.

The reason Amazon is restocked on toilet paper is that toilet paper
manufacture is fairly simple, so manufacturers have already pivoted to
manufacture toilet paper. This is a credit to manufacturers, not Amazon.

> Between COVID-19 and the US-China trade war, I hope we're all taking a long
> hard look at supply chain diversity going foreword.

This we can agree on, at least.

------
Zenbit_UX
As much as Amazon deserves some bad publicity for how they handle their
warehouse and wholefoods workers in the US, in this case I feel like they're
being vilified unfairly for the shipping of non-essentials.

Walmart is shipping whatever-the-fuck, I can order nightstands and a bed on
wayfair and weed from the SQDC (government)... Let's be clear, marijuana is
not an essential for all but a very small percentage of the population using
it as medecine...

Yet everyone's roasting Amazon for operating like it's business as usual while
the smaller players run wild.

~~~
onli
Shipping non-essential items is not the problem here. They can ship whatever
they want, but while doing so have to protect their workers. Amazon is
infamous for creating horrible working conditions in their shipping centers,
it's not a surprise that how they react to the virus is observed very closely.
Especially in a country like France that already has a critical stance towards
big US companies.

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
I'm assuming you didn't read the article? Banning the sale of non-essential
goods is mentioned multiple times.

>Amazon.com Inc. threatened to stop activity at its fulfillment centers in
France after a court order banned the sale of non-essential goods, concluding
the retailer isn’t doing enough to protect staff from the Covid-19 pandemic.

And 24 hours to implement improved health procedures? Without being told which
ones specifically to implement?

There's basically no limit to improving health procedures. They could go as
far as hourly temperature checks, glove changes after every package, no more
then 10 people in the entire warehouse, etc etc. And if they don't go far
enough (according to the courts, in 2 years when all the appeals are finally
figured out), then they could be fined 1.1 million a day since tomorrow.

~~~
benhurmarcel
This article is wrong about that; they are free to ship non-essential items as
long as they demonstrate that they protect their workers' health.

[https://www.lesechos.fr/economie-
france/social/coronavirus-l...](https://www.lesechos.fr/economie-
france/social/coronavirus-la-justice-impose-a-amazon-de-reduire-drastiquement-
son-activite-1194834)

>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".

------
lacker
I’m glad that this is not happening in my country. Banning Amazon from selling
nonessential items seems detrimental to society. The “nonessential items” that
Amazon sells are still pretty important for living my life. I’m sure there are
some ways that worker health could be protected better, but at this point I
wouldn’t trust the French government to make intelligent judgments on behalf
of public health.

~~~
Darkstryder
As most democratic countries, France has a complete separation between the
government and the justice system.

This is a justice decision. The government has nothing to do with it.

~~~
ensignavenger
Not sure where the above poster is from, but some parts of the world use a
different definition for "government" than other parts of the world. In the
USA, for example, all three separate branches of "government" (Legislature,
Executive, and Judicial) are considered "the government".

~~~
Darkstryder
I'm French. In french "gouvernement" (french word for "government") only
refers to the executive branch, and our justice system is strongly attached to
its independence from the two other branches. So it seems strange to me to
conflate all three branches together.

Interestingly, in the French wikipedia page for "gouvernement" [1], there is
this paragraph :

 _Différence avec le terme anglais_

 _En anglais, le mot « government » s 'applique non seulement au gouvernement
au sens où on l'entend en français, mais aussi aux collectivités territoriales
et aux administrations publiques, aussi bien centrales que locales. Le concept
le plus proche en français est donc celui de collectivité publique, qui
englobe les institutions politiques qui incarnent directement les pouvoirs
législatif, exécutif et judiciaire, ainsi que l'ensemble des administrations
qui leur sont rattachées._

Which can be loosely translated as :

 _Difference with the english term_

 _In English, the word "government" includes not only the executive
governement like in French, but also all local and global public
administrations. The closest concept in french is therefore "collectivité
publique" which encompasses institutions for all Legislative, Executive,
Judiciary powers, as well as all administrations under their authorities._

I learnt something new today.

[1]
[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouvernement](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouvernement)

~~~
mikeg8
Thanks for sharing. I learned something too. What’s interesting to me is that,
at least in America, we associate the judicial as government because we
consider ourselves a “land of law” and the judicial has the responsibility of
determining if the laws that “govern” how we can act have been used
appropriately or if they violate our constitutional rights. As a French
citizen, do you not feel governed by the laws which your courts oversee? Maybe
this is purely a difference in language but it’s very fascinating to me.

~~~
Darkstryder
I would have trouble talking about the difference between American and French
views of the law, or even speaking for all French people for that matter.

What I can say is that personally, I definitely think I live in a country
ruled by law. However separation of powers means there is no single entity
exercising total control on this law: the executive branch proposes changes to
the law, the legislative ratifies these changes (or not), and the judiciary
branch is an arbiter of what happens when the existing law meets real life
situations. While the limits between the executive and legislative branches
can sometimes feel porous (especially when executive and legislative are
controlled by a single political party, as is the case in both France and USA
at the moment), the judiciary branch always felt more insular to me from the
two others, at least in my country.

Another linguistic nuance to think about: in French, we are "ruled by law "
but not "governed by law". In French, "gouverner" (to govern) is something
that people do, not laws.

This is a bit of a brain dump, sorry. I wish I would have more definitive
answers for you.

~~~
ensignavenger
In the US right now, the legislative branch is actually split between the two
major parties- the Republicans control the Senate, but the Democrats control
the House of Representatives. Any new laws have to be approved by both sides
of the legislature.

~~~
Darkstryder
You’re right, and actually this is also true in France: the party in power
only controls one of the two chambers but not the other.

------
BiteCode_dev
As a french, I'm ok if amazon suspends deliveries.

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.

~~~
malandrew
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.

~~~
benhurmarcel
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
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
French news is pretty clear on that.

[https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/la-justice-
demand...](https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/la-justice-demande-a-
amazon-de-limiter-son-activite-1367425)

> 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-...](https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/amazon-va-fermer-ses-
entrepots-francais-pendant-une-semaine-1367476)

> 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...](https://www.lesechos.fr/economie-
france/social/coronavirus-la-justice-impose-a-amazon-de-reduire-drastiquement-
son-activite-1194834)

>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".

------
erowtom
It's now official, Amazon suspended all delivery services in France for 5
days, starting tonight. (In French: [https://www.bfmtv.com/sante/direct-
coronavirus-covid-19-fran...](https://www.bfmtv.com/sante/direct-coronavirus-
covid-19-france-confinement-deconfinement-reouverture-ecole-obligatoire-
attestation-aide-exceptionnelle-masque-
mort/?liveanchor=9850ccf14f8f153787dbaa49f87f93be#9850ccf14f8f153787dbaa49f87f93be))

------
tumetab1
This is weird...

> Amazon “evidently failed to comply with obligations to protect the health of
> employees,” judges said in their Tuesday ruling.

That results in

> a court order banned the sale of non-essential goods, concluding the
> retailer isn’t doing enough to protect staff from the Covid-19 pandemic.

I think there's something missing from one reason (not good enough health
practices according to the judge) to lead to ban non-essential goods sales.

Can some fill in what's missing (with references) please?

~~~
Softcadbury
Less sales leads to less activity and deliveries

~~~
BoorishBears
Realistically, it's they want to have their cake and eat it too.

If Amazon is not taking precautions and putting the population at risk, they
should be shut down.

Amazon is already putting _massive_ delays on non-essential goods (delivery
times have moved from 2 days to up to 1 month) in order to prioritize moving
essential goods. Not to mention, they've said they're hiring due to the
massive influx of orders for essential goods.

So logically speaking, if a large portion of their current activity is already
essential goods, what is this besides a way to look like they're standing up
to the big bad foreign tech company while getting to keep their deliveries
flowing in (all without actually protecting anyone)

~~~
samcday
> So logically speaking, if a large portion of their current activity is
> already essential goods

I think the point is many suspect that is not the case.

[https://thegrio.com/2020/04/01/amazon-worker-strike-
covid-19...](https://thegrio.com/2020/04/01/amazon-worker-strike-
covid-19-dildos/)

~~~
BoorishBears
This is the first week since demand spiked due to COVID that 3rd party sellers
are even allowed to sell non-essential goods on Amazon, and they make up over
50% of sales:

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-seeks-to-hire-
another-75...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-seeks-to-hire-
another-75-000-workers-11586789365)

It’s true Amazon is still selling non-essential goods, and I understand why
the man is frustrated, but it’s very clear even with just “essential goods”
being sold, Amazon will still require a large part of their current machinery.

When you’re talking about an organization as large as Amazon Fulfillment, and
a virus as infectious as COVID, these half-measures definitely come across as
more for optics than actually stopping the spread.

------
user5994461
Translations from the Amazon twitter thread, that has more details.

Top twitter comment from Amazon: Following the decision of the court on 14th
April, we (Amazon Inc) have to temporarily suspend activity in our
distribution centers.

Decision from the court, in a screenshot few comments below: We order Amazon
Inc to evaluate work-related risks inherent to the covid-19 pandemic, across
all its warehouses and to put in place measures expected by article L4121-1
from labor laws (not sure what's in this article)... we order Amazon, until
the above measures are put in place and within 24h of being notified of this
decision, to restrict warehouse activity to reception of merchandises,
preparation and shipping of food items, hygiene items and medical supplies,
otherwise it will be subject to a fine of 1M EUR per day late and per
infraction.

[https://twitter.com/AmazonNewsFR/status/1250481148209369088](https://twitter.com/AmazonNewsFR/status/1250481148209369088)

[https://twitter.com/BlaisePere/status/1250522103952158722/ph...](https://twitter.com/BlaisePere/status/1250522103952158722/ph..).

------
soufron
Well, what do they "threaten" about? They were ORDERED to stop deliveries :D

~~~
Traster
They were ordered to stop delivering golf clubs and in response are
threatening not to deliver personal protective equipment.

~~~
hedora
Did the court order include an “essential” / “not essential” categorization of
the ~ 44 million items in Amazon’s catalog? They say they’ll take 7 days to
comply with the court order. That means they have to accurately categorize 6
million catalog items each day.

Even if they had the perfect list the court is requiring, they still need to
somehow stop inflows of non-essential items from overfilling their warehouses.
The court has ordered them not to clear the warehouse space by simply selling
them, as they normally would. Instead, they have to establish some new process
(ship the items back?) while deliberately lowering the staffing levels of
their warehouses and distribution centers.

They already did a rough first pass of all of these things, and have been
incrementally improving.

This court ruling specifically rejected their current course of action.
There’s no way they’ll be able to do significantly better in a 24 hour window.

~~~
Traster
If you view it as them having to make a decision on 44 million items there is
no time frame that you can make sound reasonable. Is categorizing 44 million
in a day reasonable? I don't know. I personally wouldn't have thought
categorizing 6 million was reasonable. But then again the fine is 2cents per
item they stock per day, so it sounds pretty reaosnable.

------
samcday
I can only see it like this.

Amazon share price and business activity is surging as a direct result of
Covid-19. They need to hire 100,000+ workers to meet the demand. However, the
same thing they are profiting from (Covid-19) _should_ also increase many of
their operating expenses. Things like healthcare, paid sick leave adequate for
the situation (so at least 4 weeks for proper quarantine), good PPE, in-depth
infection combat strategies, and so on.

The problem is those operating expenses are only obvious if you have
ethics/morality/whatever that concludes individual human life is more valuable
than money. So if you're a big corporation that has been designed to enrich
shareholders and the space company fantasies of your ego-maniacal CEO, you
fight as hard as possible against taking on those operating expenses.

~~~
matz1
They do have moral, it might not be the same as yours, they moral could be to
make money. Moral is subjective.

~~~
cmendel
Businesses are intrinsically amoral. While humans may have different moral
goods, companies only have to make money and, as such, need not concern
themselves with petty human morality.

~~~
matz1
Business are made of group of people, people have moral. Business morality is
based on its people. Making money itself is a moral.

------
mcguire
Ultimatums are dangerous. If Amazon follows through with theirs, they are
gambling that they are too important to lose. That seems like it would be a
poor bet; they may lose their EU market.

~~~
dwaite
They were given an order they couldn't achieve compliance for, which fined
them 1mil per infraction against rules that were too broad to implement.

I fail to see a response other than - stay operating against the order of the
court, or close until they can be in compliance with the court.

~~~
mcguire
The unions' complaints date from before when the lawsuit was filed. In March.

" _“While the prime minister last March ordered the closure of non-essential
businesses and activities bringing together more than 100 people
simultaneously, due to the coronavirus epidemic, Amazon continues its activity
as if nothing had happened,” a union spokesperson said alongside the lawsuit.
“Despite not only the mobilisation of staff and formal notices from unions,
inspection and occupational health, but also criticism from the ministers of
economy and labour.”_ "

The ruling called for Amazon to limit orders to a rather specific group of
items; I have not heard that other companies in France have had problems
understanding. (Although I understand some stores in my state had to be told
that "no, even if what you sell is considered essential in another state, you
still have to obey this state's order.") And the ruling has been suspended
pending appeal.

" _The ruling, which has already been suspended pending appeal, required the
company to only accept orders for groceries, toiletries and medical products
as part of the wider lockdown imposed in France....Amazon immediately appealed
against the ruling, securing a suspension of the requirements until conclusion
of the appeal._ "

Amazon didn't seem to have problems when the limitation was its own idea, at
least temporarily.

" _Amazon temporarily, in late March, stopped taking orders for some non-
essential products in France and Italy, in a move to implement social
distancing guidelines at the company’s dispatch centres in those countries.
Now the company says it is “prioritising” essential products in those
countries, but non-essentials continue to be available._ "

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/15/amazon-
sales-n...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/15/amazon-sales-non-
essentials-french-court-ruling-union)

But all that aside, no country likes to be dictated to by a foreign company,
and I rather suspect Amazon has less power in France than, say, the United
Fruit Company in 20th century Nicaragua. Amazon is gambling that French
consumers value its services enough that they will oppose the likely long-term
response from the French government.

I personally wouldn't take that bet.

------
LatteLazy
I don't know why so many people feel the need to attack Amazon. They seem to
trigger people to a degree not found in many other companies...

------
throwaway284629
France should call this bluff. Amazon is trying to push around a
democratically enacted law. They are not above the law.

If Amazon was suspended in France a domestic competitor would rise up in a
year or two, and Amazon would never regain the market. They would not dare
suspending services, this is just a disgusting stunt

~~~
koheripbal
France is not geared up for spawning an Amazon competitor.

Aside from one year being waaay too late given the current crisis.

~~~
user5994461
There are many online shops that provide the same as Amazon: Cdiscount,
rueducommerce, darty, fnac, etc...

That's for non food items. For food, all the major supermarkets have been
offering delivery for the major part of the decade, long before amazon.

------
twodave
Is this really the time? I feel like whatever errors Amazon have made with
regard to protecting its employees have largely been realized in France by
now, and I have serious doubts in the efficiency of forcing a closure having a
near-to-intermediate term impact. More likely this is just going to put
fulfillment further behind and halt progress in order to protect people who
would already have gotten the virus by now.

At some point it’s just more prudent to recognize that the birds have flown
and your opportunity to fix the problems isn’t in the next 24 hours but in the
next year or years.

~~~
bluntfang
>I feel like whatever errors Amazon have made with regard to protecting its
employees have largely been realized in France by now

I guess I'm going to have to believe the people actually intimately involved
in this, like the courts, instead of an armchair analyst on hacker news.

~~~
twodave
Judging by the reaction to Amazon's response, I'm not sure I can connect the
dots that make the French government more knowledgeable of Amazon's internal
complexities than I am, to be totally honest. That is why I am asserting that
giving them a 24-hour deadline to make changes is going to do more harm than
good to the citizens of France.

I've spent enough time looking at the data to know that France is well past
their peak infection rate (by over a week). The bigger concern in the coming
weeks, in my opinion, is timely delivery of goods to those French citizens who
need them, and this new mandate goes against that concern.

~~~
bluntfang
>I'm not sure I can connect the dots that make the French government more
knowledgeable of Amazon's internal complexities than I am, to be totally
honest

Do you live in France? Are you an Amazon Employee? A French government
employee? A workplace safety professional?

~~~
twodave
Amazon employees wouldn’t have had any input on a mandate like this. Do any of
those other groups necessarily have insight into the organizational complexity
at Amazon?

I brought up what I believe is a valid argument that this mandate is harmful
to French citizens, and your response has been to attack my credibility with
an undertone of disrespect rather than bring a reasoned logic to the
discussion. As evidenced by your other comments you obviously have an agenda
in this debate, and that is fine. Life has no purpose without some kind of
agenda, but please show me the same respect I am showing you.

~~~
switch11
perhaps you could explain what your stance is

are you French?

why do you think it is harmful to French citizens?

What qualifies you to share this opinion

------
mschuster91
It's time for anti-trust regulation to step up. Companies that can essentially
extort a nation state and its independent justice system simply due to their
size and market power have grown too big and should be split up.

The behavior that Amazon has shown regarding covid19 in the past few weeks,
including firing union activists, should under normal circumstances warrant
_jail time_.

------
papermachete
Amazon has more to lose than France.

~~~
frockington1
Unfortunately the French courts don't seem to understand this. The only people
meaningfully hurt by this will be French citizens employed by Amazon

~~~
kyboren
That's not true. People relying on deliveries from Amazon's French logistics
network will also be meaningfully hurt by this.

------
A4ET8a8uTh0
What else can they do? They either comply with the law or stop delivering to
avoid non-compliance and enforcement. Do not get me wrong. It is big news, but
if Amazon gives up on EU front, American workers will demand the same
treatment. /s We can't have that. /s

------
LatteLazy
Deceptive headline...

------
chriselles
Some possibly relevant context, or just interesting anecdotes of Amazon in
Europe:

When Amazon.fr opened back in 1998/1999 in Orleans, there was industrial
action on pretty much Day 1.

It kind of fit the French stereotype of industrial action to a T.

When Amazon.de opened a bit before Amazon.fr in Regensberg, there was an issue
with Amazon's book database(at the time we were only selling books) where
books banned in Germany(such as Hitler's Mein Kampf) were viewable and able to
be purchased in Germany which caused a bit of a media stir at the time.

Things were much simpler back then, in every way.

------
hartator
Interesting that way more effort is put into repression and regulations than
actually working on providing a better healthcare system.

~~~
tasogare
That’s a very misinformed comment. Healthcare is free in France, and only some
edge cases are not covered. Even when not covered you have doctors that offer
you the consultation for free (happened to me a few times).

The problem lies in the public hospital system which is underfunded, and on
the other hand in the _numerus clausus_ that limits the number of new doctors
that can graduate every year.

~~~
dev_tty01
Sorry for being nitpicky, but there is no free healthcare in France or
anywhere else. French citizens pay for their healthcare with their taxes.
That's cool. No criticism of that choice intended. Just please don't call it
free.

------
darksaints
Not defending Amazon's petty childish antics when they deal with government,
but "essential" has a relative meeting. What is essential to you, may not be
essential to me, and vice versa. Two small examples:

My friend started a new remote job last week after about 6 months of
unemployment...a feat that was amazing considering the fact that most
companies are laying off. He was required to buy a laptop, which was to be
reimbursed. He had extensive difficulty buying a laptop that met the required
specs because most computer stores are considered non-essential, and amazon
had delivery times that were too long.

The other was in Target. I saw someone buying a ton of furniture, while
crying. I asked if they were okay, and they responded that their house burned
down a month ago, and they had been staying in a hotel while insurance was
processing everything, but their hotel time limit had passed and they were
forced to move into an empty apartment because their furniture company shut
down operations due to being non-essential. She had spent the night on a bare
hardwood floor with her husband and toddler.

------
Nightshaxx
Who is to say what's essential?? You've basically locked everyone in their
homes, and now you are even trying to deny them delivery of goods they may
need. Even things purely for recreation may help ease the tension and stress
of lockdown and encourage people to do what the government wants them to do:
stay inside.

Name literally anything on the Amazon store, and I can come up with a
reasonable senerio where someone could legitimately need it. P

~~~
josefx
> Who is to say what's essential?

In this case the choice is made by the court since amazon failed to ensure
safe distancing while operating its warehouses at full capacity[1]

> You've basically locked everyone in their homes, and now you are even trying
> to deny them delivery of goods they may need.

People can still buy most non essentials from companies that manage to comply
with the current regulations instead of flaunting them.

[1][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-
amazon...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-amazon-
france/amazon-ordered-to-limit-france-trade-to-essential-goods-
within-24-hours-idUSKCN21W1S6?il=0&utm_source=reddit.com)

