# Are the French 'lazy'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 13, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861 "2013-03-13T21:39:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/61 "2013-03-15T13:30:12Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Here’s one: > More Workers Filing Lawsuits To Claim Unpaid Overtime > [More Workers Filing Lawsuits To Claim Unpaid Overtime | HuffPost Impact](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/overtime-pay-lawsuits_n_1428102.html) > > And another: > More American workers sue employers for overtime pay > [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/jobcenter/workplace/story/2012-04-15/workers-sue-unpaid-overtime/54301774/1](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/jobcenter/workplace/story/2012-04-15/workers-sue-unpaid-overtime/54301774/1) > > If I had to guess, the reason salaried positions are so coveted is because people like you still think they’re making out better in the deal. And anyway, we aren’t arguing about whether salaried positions are enviable or not. We’re arguing about whether salaried positions should be exempt from paid overtime. I’ll get to your cites when I have more time. But, yes, even in the argument over whether salaried positions should be paid overtime it’s certainly relevant that: 1. Salaried positions (in the US) don’t pay overtime now. And… 2. Salaried positions are desirable by employees and are preferred over hourly positions. These two facts are certainly a powerful argument that there is nothing wrong with the current system and that workers by and large aren’t getting a bad deal. Your argument that everyone is simply wrong because they foolishly think they are making out in the deal doesn’t carry much weight. People generally act in their own best interests, and people generally know what is in their own best interests. I get that you **think** you know what’s better for everyone, but I think you are wrong and that they are right. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/62 "2013-03-15T13:31:21Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Actually, no. **Rune** ’s whole argument is that there are alternatives. Now, employers don’t like the alternatives because it is more expensive than asking people to stay late and not get paid. But, one can, as he pointed, hire more staff or pay overtime, etc. etc. > > I’m sorry you suffer from the poverty of imagination or gullibility to believe that “it just has to be done.” “Nope, there’s no other way around it, **Debaser** , you’re just going to have to it on the chin.” But the fact that you personally cannot negotiate in your best interest (because of timidity or a weak bargaining position) does not mean that other people who have avoided this pitfall are wrong to promote their own best interests. > > Self-described capitalists who resent that other people have been able to strike better deals than they hardly deserve the name. Although that doesn’t seem to stop them. Most people generally have a weak bargaining position against their employers as their employer can implicitly threaten them with the loss of their primary source of income and health care, much like a baron threatening to kick his peasents off his land. Except that corporate system is much more depersonalized. But sometimes, yes, you do have to work long hours in certain jobs. Lawyers have to work long hours because they can’t show up to court half prepared and throwing more lawyers at a case isn’t always feasible. People in technology too, since they are often racing to get a product to market or they maintain critical systems that can’t wait for them to come back to work at 9 the next day. But there are also plenty of jobs where you can just sit on your ass and clock out at five. > [@Simplicio](#): > > Seems weird to think this is weird. How much money does the US put into subsidizing the agricultural sector with the (questionable) justification that its for “protecting family farms” every year? I think every industrialized country has a weird hang-up over letting agriculutral goods compete in a free market. Taken in context with the other stats, I just think it’s interesting how people have a certain perception about a country that may not completely be accurate according to the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/63 "2013-03-15T13:32:36Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > But that wasn’t your contention before. You said earlier that sometimes people just have to stay late because things just have to get done, and since you were salaried that was expected. It’s not expected everywhere, is what others are saying. If you are working 45 hours a work week, you should be getting paid for 45 hours of work. Not an arbitrarily higher salary because the expectations are that you’re going to work more than you’re actually getting paid for. Says who? If you go into a career like law or medicine you can expect you will be working long hours, especially at the beginning. This is done often for low pay because once you are finished with that residency or internship you are going to see a huge salary. Who are you to tell them that isn’t a good deal? What’s wrong with having a job that requires lots of hours and in return pays a high salary? If that’s what people choose, why would you stop them? ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/64 "2013-03-15T13:36:05Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I’ll get to your cites when I have more time. > > But, yes, even in the argument over whether salaried positions should be paid overtime it’s certainly relevant that: > > 1. Salaried positions (in the US) don’t pay overtime now. And… > 2. Salaried positions are desirable by employees and are preferred over hourly positions. > > These two facts are certainly a powerful argument that there is nothing wrong with the current system and that workers by and large aren’t getting a bad deal. > > Your argument that everyone is simply wrong because they foolishly think they are making out in the deal doesn’t carry much weight. People generally act in their own best interests, and people generally know what is in their own best interests. I get that you **think** you know what’s better for everyone, but I think you are wrong and that they are right. But my cites show that there certainly IS something wrong with the system, because people are suing to be paid what they are owed. Not all salaried positions don’t pay overtime. Only those that fit the federal definition of exempt do, legally. In the real world though, employers treat ALL salaried positions as though they are exempt. Which is why people are suing for back owed pay, because they should not have been treated as exempt and were. Because it was in the employer’s best interest to do so. The fact that the job market is heavily slanted in favor of employers right now should not lead to the conclusion that “everybody loves the way it is now”. I’m certain if you asked exempt salaried employees if they would like to be non-exempt and paid overtime for their work, they would probably say yes. It is in their best interest to be paid for work they do over 40 hours. Comp time is different, in your situation, where you discuss working 35/45 to make up for unpaid time off. Actual unpaid overtime is a different beast altogether. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/65 "2013-03-15T13:44:48Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I’ve never known anyone that had to stop working just to eat. See… this is the problem with the US system. You can just as easily spin it around and say “What’s so fucking important at work that you can’t stop and eat dinner for an hour?” Or really, “What’s so fucking important at work that you can’t just do it the following morning?” The real answer is ALMOST NOTHING. The US work culture has become one of a sort of idiotic machismo about working long hours and suffering personal privations in pursuit of ultimately unimportant work goals. Having been in the workforce for 12 years or so by now, I can say that of the times that I’ve worked overtime, I remember working overtime and the binds it put me in, but I can’t say that I recall what it was that I was working on, and in the cases where I can, I can also say that it didn’t make a damn bit of difference, and we could have just as easily have taken an extra week to get it done, rather than work 3 nights until midnight. The French have the right idea ultimately. Their jobs are something that enables them to live their lives, not the other way around, which unfortunately seems to be more common on this side of the Atlantic. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/66 "2013-03-15T13:47:34Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 1. Salaried positions (in the US) don’t pay overtime now. And… > 2. Salaried positions are desirable by employees and are preferred over hourly positions. > > These two facts are certainly a powerful argument that there is nothing wrong with the current system and that workers by and large aren’t getting a bad deal. It’s only an argument that salaried (US-style) is better than hourly. It says nothing about the merits of the system as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/67 "2013-03-15T13:57:16Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Lawyers have to work long hours because they can’t show up to court half prepared and throwing more lawyers at a case isn’t always feasible. And a trial lawyer is going send you a detailed bill demanding payment for all the time he or she worked, likely in six- or 15-minute increments. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/68 "2013-03-15T14:39:46Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > People in technology too, since they are often racing to get a product to market or they maintain critical systems that can’t wait for them to come back to work at 9 the next day. Also, the critical hardware support guys are more often than not paid hourly or are contractors. Doctors, nurses, long-haul drivers, and pilots are probably a better example among salaried employees. But even here, though airlines or hospitals might want them working longer hours, there are laws limiting the consecutive number of hours they can work without at least an 8-hour break and limiting the overall number of hour they work per week. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/69 "2013-03-15T16:38:59Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Everyone was salaried so there wasn’t overtime, except possibly for contractors. The hell? Is this an America-wide thing? That sucks - our national labour laws _mandate_ overtime pay for most everyone who makes an average salary (upper management and people who make over a certain amount are excluded, but even there, there _has_ to be a contract, and IME it usually closely mirrors the Labour Act). Overtime is at 1.5 x normal pay rates minimum (or time off in lieu - again, 1.5 hrs per hour worked) ---
**Author:** ![Kepler1571](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/db5fbb/32.png) [@Kepler1571](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kepler1571)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/70 "2013-03-15T16:53:28Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The hell? Is this an America-wide thing? That sucks - our national labour laws _mandate_ overtime pay for most everyone who makes an average salary (upper management and people who make over a certain amount are excluded, but even there, there _has_ to be a contract, and IME it usually closely mirrors the Labour Act). Overtime is at 1.5 x normal pay rates minimum (or time off in lieu - again, 1.5 hrs per hour worked) In the US it is normal for salaried employees to not get overtime. Hence the distinct between exempt and non-exempt employees in federal law. Americans really have no idea how labor markets work. For contractors it depends on the contract, under the restrictions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). For example, the federal contract I work under has EWW (Extended Work Week) for salaried employees below the level of Program Manager. EWW is straight time (1.0) overtime, as distinct from Premium (1.5) overtime, which hourly employees get. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/71 "2013-03-15T17:06:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Peugeot tried to close plants and lay off workers to adjust production levels to meet market demand, but its unions successfully stalled the implementation of the management’s austerity plan by taking the car company to court. Peugeot was allowed to cut production, but it was not allowed to lay off any of its workers until the court gave it “permission.” This is not unique to France. The same thing occurs here via the NLRB; French workers are just more likely to be unionized. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/72 "2013-03-15T17:45:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > This is not unique to France. The same thing occurs here via the NLRB; French workers are just more likely to be unionized. I don’t believe that’s the case. The NLRB is empowered to investigate and remedy unfair labor practices. Under U.S. law, [they are:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_labor_practice) > [@](#): > > In broad terms, the NLRB makes it unlawful for an employer to: > > - interfere with two or more employees acting in concert to protect rights provided for in the Act, whether or not a union exists > - to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of a labor organization > - to discriminate an employee from engaging in concerted or union activities or refraining from them > - to discriminate against an employee for filing charges with the NLRB or taking part in any NLRB proceedings > - to refuse to bargain with the union that is the lawful representative of its employees > > The Act similarly bars unions from: > > - restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights or an employer in the choice of its bargaining representative > - causing an employer to discriminate against an employee > - refusing to bargain with the employer of the employees it represents > - engaging in certain types of secondary boycotts > - requiring excessive dues > - engaging in featherbedding (requiring an employer to pay for unneeded workers) > - picketing for recognition for more than thirty days without petitioning for an election > - entering into “hot cargo” agreements (refusing to handle goods from an anti-union employer) > - striking or picketing a health care establishment without giving the required notice So, absent some other unfair practice, a layoff due to production cuts wouldn’t be actionable by the NLRB. I am, of course, open to correction. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/73 "2013-03-15T17:56:36Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > And a trial lawyer is going send you a detailed bill demanding payment for all the time he or she worked, likely in six- or 15-minute increments. Right, but that’s not what the associates get paid. It’s the same in consulting and accounting. The firm pays you a straight salary, but you are expected to bill as many hours as possible. Typically there is no marginal cost to the firm for having you work more hours. The upside for the associate is in 10-15 years when they become “partners” or “principles” are are eligible for profit sharing in the firm. > [@Kepler1571](#): > > Americans really have no idea how labor markets work. We know if we can get a job for more money with better hours somewhere else, that’s probably a better deal. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/74 "2013-03-15T17:58:22Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Here’s one: > More Workers Filing Lawsuits To Claim Unpaid Overtime > [More Workers Filing Lawsuits To Claim Unpaid Overtime | HuffPost Impact](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/overtime-pay-lawsuits_n_1428102.html) > > And another: > More American workers sue employers for overtime pay > [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/jobcenter/workplace/story/2012-04-15/workers-sue-unpaid-overtime/54301774/1](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/jobcenter/workplace/story/2012-04-15/workers-sue-unpaid-overtime/54301774/1) > > If I had to guess, the reason salaried positions are so coveted is because people like you still think they’re making out better in the deal. And anyway, we aren’t arguing about whether salaried positions are enviable or not. We’re arguing about whether salaried positions should be exempt from paid overtime. I’m reading your posts now. They seem dubious in the facts they are presenting. Both cite only 2008 vs 2012 in the number of lawsuits against employers for overtime raising by 30%. Of course it’s going to be higher. You are comparing now to the year before the recession. I’m sure that raises have also been lower (or non-existent) during that time and that bonuses have also been lower. This doesn’t mean anything. I can stipulate that the worse the economy is the more likely it is that employers will cut corners and force unpaid overtime on people who should be paid for it. What’s this prove? Nothing. There are still most people working in salaried positions who are quite happy with the system and who would rather have a higher salary than overtime pay. We’d have such a system if that’s what people wanted. People prefer to have the flexibility and security of a salary. Back to your original claim, which I asked for you to provide a cite for: > [@](#): > > But if you’re balancing it, then it doesn’t matter. Getting paid by the hour doesn’t make any difference if you’re giving an hour here and taking an hour there. But in most cases, you’re just giving extra hours all the time, without taking them back anywhere. Which is what your employer counts on, **which is why salary is an option for them because it works out to their advantage in the long run to make you exempt from being paid overtime.** Your cites don’t prove this. Companies being sued for abusing overtime laws has nothing to do with proving that the reason companies pay people salary is because it works to their advantage to force their employees to work unpaid overtime. It’s like if I made the claim that banks only have money in their cash drawers because they like to be robbed. You dispute my claim. I provide a cite that bank robberies are up 30%. This doesn’t prove the intent. Got anything else? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/75 "2013-03-15T18:54:48Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I don’t believe that’s the case. The NLRB is empowered to investigate and remedy unfair labor practices. Under U.S. law, [they are:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_labor_practice) > > So, absent some other unfair practice, a layoff due to production cuts wouldn’t be actionable by the NLRB. > > I am, of course, open to correction. Plant closures and layoff policies are mandatory subjects of collecting bargaining under the NLRA (as amended), and thus always subject to jurisdiction of the NLRB. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/76 "2013-03-15T19:01:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Plant closures and layoff policies are mandatory subjects of collecting bargaining under the NLRA (as amended), and thus always subject to jurisdiction of the NLRB. Yes, but it’s only an unfair labor practice if the employer refused to bargain with the union that was the lawful representative of the employees. ---
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/77 "2013-03-15T21:15:43Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The hell? Is this an America-wide thing? That sucks - our national labour laws _mandate_ overtime pay for most everyone who makes an average salary (upper management and people who make over a certain amount are excluded, but even there, there _has_ to be a contract, and IME it usually closely mirrors the Labour Act). Overtime is at 1.5 x normal pay rates minimum (or time off in lieu - again, 1.5 hrs per hour worked) > [@Kepler1571](#): > > In the US it is normal for salaried employees to not get overtime. Hence the distinct between exempt and non-exempt employees in federal law. Just be be totally clear, for all of the people I know in the US with salaried jobs, not only do salaried jobs not pay overtime for extra time worked, they don’t even pay normal pay for those hours. As in, I worked an 11.5hr day on Monday, and I won’t see an extra penny for it. It just means there is a smaller pile of work for Tuesday. About 3 years ago, my employer replaced everyone’s desktop computer with a laptop. Probably the best use of funds they ever did. Most of my co-workers regularly put in extra time from home, on weekends or evenings. We’ve cut our inside sales staff by about 40% in the last 5 years, but the number of quotes and orders has only gone up. No, we haven’t rolled out some fantastic new software. We’re all working longer hours. I’ve heard that California is cracking down on what jobs can be classified as salaried and exempt. Good for them, and I hope the rest of the country follows suit. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/78 "2013-03-15T22:09:13Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Yes, but it’s only an unfair labor practice if the employer refused to bargain with the union that was the lawful representative of the employees. Right, but if the union wants to it can always accuse the employer of refusal to bargain (or, more commonly, to bargain in good faith). ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/79 "2013-03-15T22:58:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Right, but if the union wants to it can always accuse the employer of refusal to bargain (or, more commonly, to bargain in good faith). That is true; and it’s hardly a [bright-line distinction:](http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employerunion-rights-obligations) > [@](#): > > How is “good faith” bargaining determined? > There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of NLRB cases dealing with the issue of the duty to bargain in good faith. In determining whether a party is bargaining in good faith, the Board will look at the totality of the circumstances. The duty to bargain in good faith is an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement. This implies both an open mind and a sincere desire to reach an agreement as well as a sincere effort to reach a common ground. > > The additional requirement to bargain in “good faith” was incorporated to ensure that a party did not come to the bargaining table and simply go through the motions. There are objective criteria that the NLRB will review to determine if the parties are honoring their obligation to bargain in good faith, such as whether the party is willing to meet at reasonable times and intervals and whether the party is represented by someone who has the authority to make decisions at the table. > > Conduct away from the bargaining table may also be relevant. For instance if an Employer were to make a unilateral change in the terms and conditions of employees employment without bargaining, that would be an indication of bad faith. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861/80 "2013-03-15T23:20:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Right, but if the union wants to it can always accuse the employer of refusal to bargain (or, more commonly, to bargain in good faith). Yes, but are employers required to bargain in good faith regarding the layoff _policies_ ( which may have been in place for decades before a layoff) or the layoffs/plant closings themselves? There’s a difference and I can’t say I’ve ever heard of a union stopping or even delaying a layoff or plant closing because the company didn’t bargain about the layoff/closing itself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-french-lazy/652861.md?page=5)