Right, but everything has tradeoffs. If the org chooses to protect benefits, then it may mean more cuts. For instance, to save $X a non-unionized firm may have

Right, but everything has tradeoffs. If the org chooses to protect benefits, then it may mean more cuts. For instance, to save $X a non-unionized firm may have to cut 5% of the workforce, and it would likely choose weaker performers. But if they have to provide more benefits and severance to those they let go, they may have to cut 10% of the workforce instead. In my experience layoffs were always measured. The people affected were usually weaker performers or in functions that weren't practical anymore (e.g. recruiter during a hiring freeze). For me the tradeoff is not worth it. I understand that there will be ups and downs and I may one day be a victim. But I appreciate the flexibility that likely led me to be hired in the first place without a traditional background in tech. Basically they took a chance and luckily it worked out. But if the firm had a much higher cost to get rid of someone, they likely would have went with a more traditional candidate