[derekp7]

That sounds very much like what has been claimed about Amazon handling the French court order to fine them a high dollar amount for each non-essential (as determined by the court) item they deliver. If the cost of something slipping through the cracks is that high, then it is cheaper to not do business where there are potential cracks to slip through.

[jimmaswell]

I'm so glad I don't live in France. What a ridiculous place. People need "non-essential" Amazon deliveries and drivers need jobs now more than ever.

[josefx]

Fun fact: The court order doesn't use the word essential even once, it was introduced by Amazon lawyers and PR. The court order was solely about repeated safety violations and Amazons refusal to reduce operations to a safe level. The court order also gave an explicit whitelist of Amazons own categories for the reduction, not a generic "essential" or "food" classification that Amazon would have to interpret itself.

> People need "non-essential" Amazon deliveries and drivers need jobs now more than ever.

Which is why Amazon quite clearly made the right choice by shutting down the warehouses completely, right?

[MereInterest]

> Amazon handling the French court order to fine them a high dollar amount for each non-essential (as determined by the court) item they deliver

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Amazon has shown that they cannot be trusted to determine whether workers or items delivered are essential, and do not take the safety of their workers into account. The cost of behaving in an untrustworthy manner is having everybody else treat Amazon as untrustworthy.