If your company is working well, should you be able to downsize and fire employees without a clear motive? To a certain degree, France believes the answer is no.
But my question is then, why the company did not argue that they need to fire these 22 000 workers without resorting to shady methods?
"Company executives thought they needed to get rid of 22,000 workers out of 130,000 — a necessity contested by the prosecution — to ensure survival."
Was there some additional cost to triggering mechanism you describe?
On the other hand if an employee resigns, it's free.
For a time, big French corporations were known for their aggressive methods, putting employees in empty rooms with no computers and no work to do to "force" them to resign.