5 ms·

I don't know if it's the same in the U.S but here (Israel) unionizing means two massive competitive disadvantages for companies: 1. Inability to fire low perfo

I don't know if it's the same in the U.S but here (Israel) unionizing means two massive competitive disadvantages for companies: 1. Inability to fire low performers quickly (and often times at all) 2. Inability to reward monetarily high performers (or offer competitive pay) That's a hell of a handicap for companies to accept without a fight.

PradeetPatel 4y ago
It is the same in India as well. It has been established that removal of unionised resources can pose an exceptional challenge, which may result in monetary and potential reputation loss for the company.
ResearchCode 4y ago
It's not about low performers, but workers who complain about mistreatment. There is usually nothing preventing unionized companies for offering higher pay for high performers, but sometimes they use the union agreements (which ask for wage adjustments well below inflation the inflation rate at the moment) as an excuse not to offer higher wages. A game company might not like unions because it would harder to retaliate against workers protesting against illegal "crunch" time. Just an example.
pjmlp 4y ago
In Germany, those things aren't tied to unions, and even people that aren't part of a union do have the right to proper work laws.
krotos 4y ago
Is it really a disadvantage to be forced to clearly define the expectations for the workers? "Low performers" are easy enough to fire, even with unions, as long as management actually does their job and documents repeated missing expectations. But I guess the inability to fire at will is what the company is complaining about. By not being required to clearly state expectations, management can move the goal posts at will, exploit workers and then fire them for not meeting informed expectations.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Yeah, it’s not like non-unionized enterprises make it easy to fire workers. There’s evidence collection, meetings with HR, PIPs even when it’s at will.

PradeetPatel 4y ago

It is the same in India as well. It has been established that removal of unionised resources can pose an exceptional challenge, which may result in monetary and potential reputation loss for the company.

ResearchCode 4y ago

It's not about low performers, but workers who complain about mistreatment. There is usually nothing preventing unionized companies for offering higher pay for high performers, but sometimes they use the union agreements (which ask for wage adjustments well below inflation the inflation rate at the moment) as an excuse not to offer higher wages. A game company might not like unions because it would harder to retaliate against workers protesting against illegal "crunch" time. Just an example.

pjmlp 4y ago

In Germany, those things aren't tied to unions, and even people that aren't part of a union do have the right to proper work laws.

krotos 4y ago

Is it really a disadvantage to be forced to clearly define the expectations for the workers? "Low performers" are easy enough to fire, even with unions, as long as management actually does their job and documents repeated missing expectations. But I guess the inability to fire at will is what the company is complaining about. By not being required to clearly state expectations, management can move the goal posts at will, exploit workers and then fire them for not meeting informed expectations.

Spivak 4y ago
Yeah, it’s not like non-unionized enterprises make it easy to fire workers. There’s evidence collection, meetings with HR, PIPs even when it’s at will.