Unions tend to incentivize low performers and prevent companies from adapting to changing conditions. Since it's next to impossible to get fired from a union s

Unions tend to incentivize low performers and prevent companies from adapting to changing conditions. Since it's next to impossible to get fired from a union shop, lower performers and less ambitious tend to stick around because it's easy work and they can't really get fired. And because pay in union shops is often tied more to tenure than performance, your higher-performing workers tend to get resentful and leave, as they are not rewarded for their contributions. In terms of inflexibility, markets and conditions can change very quickly, which means people's roles and responsibilities need to change. Unions tend to (but as a rule to "have to") push back against this, even when the employer is offering re-training programs. Typically unions define what a "job" is and then fight to keep said jobs, which can prevent companies from making the changes they need to. Ironically, this often leads to more, not fewer job losses, since the company can't adapt. This is why many cities in the Northeast still have "typists" officially on their payroll. The union will fight to keep a person's job, _as it was defined the day they were hired_. You can get away with this sort of thing in government, up to a point. In the private sector it can gradually grind companies down, as it prevents them from making the necessary transformations the need to in order to succeed longer term.