Opposing Team - Closing

According to the proposition team, we can bossnap even though it's illegal, as long as we're desperate and that demonstrating failed. Sequestration, why should we stop there? Since context allows us to break the law, let's break it in a way that solves our problems once and for all : robbing a bank !

More seriously, bossnaping isn't a great tool for social conflict in terms of efficiency. We must admit that lately it seemed to work, but only because such a massive bossnapping movement is quite new : eventually companies will set up a standard policy about bossnapping which will certainly be "no negotiation with criminals", as states did with terrorists.

Proposing team also pointed out the negative impact of demonstration and traffic jamming on public opinion. But what they don't seem to understand is that bossnappers are considered even worse : even if they're defending their job, their salary, for the average citizen they are criminals first. A study lead by IFOP shows that only 30% of the French approve this means of negotiation, whereas 74% approve the next SNCF strike on Thursday, according to BVA-BPI.

Let's analyze now our opponents' last argument (which thus must be the strongest). The primary cause of massive lays off is a voluntarily bad management of companies, which enables bosses to get bossnapped in order to experiment the thrill of being sequestrated. Well, it's an interesting theory, but we can point out a few contradictions. First, the bosses described here, so rich and powerful that they can put their company in bankrupt to fight boredom, aren't really numerous (assuming they even exist). Then, they never get bossnapped : they're working from home or in a building more secure than a military base. Bad luck for them, they will have to find another alibi for adultery. In fact, the so-called bosses that are kept hostage by workers are employees as well, mainly factory directors.

Let's recap our points from the beginning. Bossnapping is illegal, risky for its user since he may not find another job after having napped his boss, unbalancing because it gives employees a too important leverage to negotiate, and almost uneffective means of dealing with social conflicts. That's why we propose instead to restrain employees' way of protesting to demonstrations and strikes, or if they really think that their boss is useless, to experiment self-management of the company. In any case, bossnapping is not the perfect solution unions have always been looking for, and that's why we urge the floor to refuse this motion by voting for us.