Learn Hardcore French: Le responsable explique que le plus grand avantage de cet emploi est la liberté d'organiser ses journées. - The manager explains that the biggest advantage of this job is the freedom to organize your days.

In this sentence, le responsable is a noun meaning the person in charge, often best translated as the manager or the supervisor, depending on the context.

Responsable can be both an adjective (responsible) and a noun (person in charge).
With an article (le, la, les) in front and no noun after it, it usually functions as a job title:
- le responsable = the manager / the person in charge (male or unspecified)
- la responsable = the manager / the person in charge (female)

So here, you should understand le responsable as the manager explains… rather than “the person who is guilty” or anything negative.

Why do we need que in explique que? In English we can say “explains the biggest advantage is…”, without that.

In French, you must use que to introduce this kind of clause.

explique que… = explains that…
The part le plus grand avantage de cet emploi est… is a subordinate clause introduced by que.
In English, that can often be dropped:
- “He explains (that) the biggest advantage is…”
In French, que normally cannot be dropped in this structure:
- ✅ Il explique que le plus grand avantage…
- ❌ Il explique le plus grand avantage… (changes the meaning / becomes incorrect here)

So que here is a required conjunction meaning that, even if English can leave that out.

What’s the difference between explique que and dit que? Could we say Le responsable dit que… instead?

Yes, you could say Le responsable dit que…, but there is a nuance.

dire que = to say that, to state that
expliquer que = to explain that, to make something clear, to give reasons or clarification

explique que implies the manager is clarifying or giving more detailed information about why this is the biggest advantage, or how it works, etc.
dit que would be a bit more neutral: he just says it.

Both are grammatically correct, but explique que gives a stronger sense of explanation.

Why isn’t there a subjunctive after explique que? Why is it est and not soit?

After expliquer que, French normally uses the indicative, not the subjunctive, because it introduces a statement of fact (from the speaker’s point of view).

Il explique que… est… = he explains that … is … (a fact, as he presents it)

You use the subjunctive after verbs that express doubt, wish, fear, emotion, or necessity, for example:

Il craint que ce ne soit pas un bon avantage.
(He fears that this may not be a good advantage.)

But expliquer que is like dire que, affirmer que, constater que: it reports a statement, so indicative (est) is correct:

✅ Le responsable explique que… est…
❌ Le responsable explique que… soit… (would sound wrong here)

How does le plus grand avantage work? Why not le plus avantage or le meilleur avantage?

le plus grand avantage literally means the largest / greatest advantage, i.e. the biggest advantage.

avantage is a noun; you need an adjective with it:
- un grand avantage = a big / major advantage
- le plus grand avantage = the biggest / greatest advantage (superlative)

You cannot say le plus avantage because avantage is a noun, and plus needs an adjective (here, grand) to form the superlative.

Could you say le meilleur avantage?
Grammatically yes, but it’s not very natural. For avantage, French usually uses grand, principal, plus grand:

le principal avantage = the main advantage
le plus grand avantage = the greatest/biggest advantage

So le plus grand avantage is the normal, idiomatic choice.

Why is it de cet emploi and not dans cet emploi after avantage?

With avantage, French commonly uses the structure l’avantage de + noun / infinitive to mean the advantage of….

l’avantage de cet emploi = the advantage of this job
le plus grand avantage de cet emploi = the biggest advantage of this job

If you used dans, you would shift the meaning:

l’avantage dans cet emploi = the advantage in this job (more like “the advantage you have while you are in this job”), which is possible but less idiomatic in this sentence.

Here, we’re talking about an inherent advantage of the job itself, so de cet emploi is the standard choice.

What is the difference between emploi and travail? Could we say de ce travail instead?

Both emploi and travail can mean job/work, but they aren’t used in exactly the same way.

emploi = a position, job, often more formal or administrative.
- chercher un emploi = to look for a job
- un emploi à plein temps = a full‑time position
travail = work in general, and also a job, but broader and more common in everyday speech.
- le travail est fatigant = work is tiring
- J’ai trouvé du travail = I found work / a job

In this specific sentence (perhaps from a report, article, interview), emploi sounds slightly more formal and precise.
You could hear le plus grand avantage de ce travail, but de cet emploi fits particularly well in a neutral or formal written style.

Why do we say la liberté de + infinitive? Could we also say la liberté pour organiser ses journées?

With liberté, the usual pattern is la liberté de + infinitive:

la liberté d’organiser ses journées
la liberté de choisir
la liberté de partir quand on veut

de + infinitive here means the freedom to do something.

Using pour after liberté is not standard in this structure:

❌ la liberté pour organiser ses journées (sounds wrong or at least very awkward)

So you should memorize:

avoir la liberté de + infinitif = to have the freedom to + verb

Why is it d’organiser and not de organiser?

This is a simple case of elision in French.

The rule: de
- a word starting with a vowel (or mute h) → d’ + word
So:
- de organiser → d’organiser
- de habiter → d’habiter

It’s purely phonetic: French avoids having two vowels next to each other at word boundaries. Writing de organiser is considered incorrect; the correct form is d’organiser.

Why is organiser in the infinitive? Who is actually doing the organizing?

organiser is in the infinitive because it depends on the noun liberté:

la liberté de + infinitif = the freedom to + verb

So d’organiser is governed by la liberté.

Who is doing the organizing? It’s the person who has the job (the employee). The subject of the infinitive is understood from context:

“The biggest advantage of this job is the freedom [for the person who has this job] to organize their days.”

French does not explicitly repeat the subject here; it is implied. This is very common with de + infinitif after liberté, possibilité, chance, etc.

Who does ses in ses journées refer to? The manager? The employee? Someone else?

ses journées refers to the person who has the job (the employee), not specifically the manager.

The logic is:

le plus grand avantage de cet emploi
→ the biggest advantage of this job
est la liberté d’organiser ses journées
→ is the freedom [for the person with this job] to organize their days.

So ses points back to the generic person occupying that job. This is a typical use of ses in French: it refers to the logical possessor in context, even if that possessor has not been named explicitly in that part of the sentence.

Why is it ses journées and not leurs journées or vos journées?

French often uses son / sa / ses to refer to “one’s own” in a general statement, where English might use your, their, or even just omit the pronoun.

C’est l’avantage de ce métier : on organise ses journées.
= The advantage of this job is that you can organize your days.

Why not leurs?

leurs journées means their days (clearly plural owners in a specific, not generic, sense).
Here, the sentence describes an advantage of the job in general, for whoever does it, so ses is used generically.

Why not vos?

vos journées would sound like the manager is directly addressing “you”, which this sentence does not clearly do. It’s more descriptive than conversational.

So ses journées = one’s (own) days in this context.

What is the difference between journées and jours? Why use journées here?

Both relate to days, but there is a nuance:

jour = the day as a calendar unit (date, count):
- deux jours = two days
- le 12e jour = the 12th day
journée = the day as a period of time/activities, often from morning to evening, focusing on what happens during that day:
- passer une bonne journée = to have a good day
- ma journée de travail = my workday

In organiser ses journées, we are talking about:

how you structure your daily time / schedule / activities
→ That’s exactly the meaning of journée.

So organiser ses journées = to organize one’s days (in terms of schedule / how the day unfolds), which fits perfectly with the idea of flexibility and freedom in a job.

Could we change the word order and say: Le responsable explique que la liberté d’organiser ses journées est le plus grand avantage de cet emploi?

Yes, that sentence is grammatically correct and means essentially the same thing.

Original:
- Le responsable explique que le plus grand avantage de cet emploi est la liberté d’organiser ses journées.
Reordered:
- Le responsable explique que la liberté d’organiser ses journées est le plus grand avantage de cet emploi.

The difference is mostly one of emphasis:

Original: first highlights “the biggest advantage of this job”, then tells you what it is.
Reordered: first highlights “the freedom to organize one’s days”, then labels it as the biggest advantage.

Both are natural; the original structure is very common in French.

In indirect speech like Le responsable explique que…, why is the verb est in the present and not in the past (like était)?

In French, when reporting speech in the present (e.g. explique), you normally keep the present tense in the subordinate clause if the statement is still true at the time of speaking:

Le responsable explique que le plus grand avantage… est la liberté…
→ He explains that the biggest advantage is the freedom…

If you were reporting this from a point in the past, you might shift tenses:

Le responsable a expliqué que le plus grand avantage… était la liberté…
→ The manager explained that the biggest advantage was the freedom…

So:

Present reporting verb (explique) → present in the subordinate clause (est) if the information is still valid.
Past reporting verb (a expliqué, expliquait) → often past in the subordinate clause (était), especially in narrative contexts.