[AdamJacobMuller]

The analogy appears fitting at first glance, but it's crucial to note that the moderators in question aren't simply choosing to abstain from their duties—they're actively hindering others who might wish to take up those responsibilities.

I may not be an expert in French law, yet an analogy that comes to mind would be envisioning workers of a grocery store who've decided to go on strike. But rather than merely expressing their refusal to work, they also opt to seal the store's doors, blocking customers from entering.

Of course, customers might find the current situation unfavorable due to the absence of employees (think of barren shelves, paralleling communities overpopulated with off-topic discussions). Management, too, would likely find the situation objectionable due to a lack of employees to ensure transactions are being made legally (equivalent to the absence of moderators who uphold site rules, a scenario potentially hazardous to Reddit). Even though management might be compelled to shut down the store under these circumstances, it's essential to remember that closure remains a management prerogative, not a decision for the striking workers.

[amatecha]

> they're actively hindering others who might wish to take up those responsibilities.

Isn't that literally exactly what a strike is? No one crosses the picket line if a sufficient majority agreed to undertake the strike?

[AdamJacobMuller]

Again, not an expert on French law, but in the US you can just hire someone else to do the job in the case of most strikes. pejoratively called scabs.

[progval]

It's illegal for employers to hire fixed-term employees in this case: https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F34

However, they can have volunteers fill the position: https://www.editions-tissot.fr/droit-travail/jurisprudence-s...

[AdamJacobMuller]

Interesting that it’s the case that they can have volunteers in french law given the context of reddit volunteers.