Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters argue that rigid seniority rules and blanket job protections can shield underperformance, demoralise capable staff, and make it harder for managers to build effective teams, particularly in areas like education and public administration where outcomes matter to the public. Allowing pay to reflect individual performance, they contend, rewards excellence, helps retain talented workers who might otherwise leave for the private sector, and gives agencies the flexibility to respond to changing needs rather than being locked into uniform pay scales and cumbersome dismissal processes negotiated decades ago.

The case against

Critics argue that collective bargaining exists precisely to prevent arbitrary or politically motivated dismissals, and that weakening it leaves individual workers exposed to favouritism, unsafe conditions, or pressure to stay silent about problems. They contend that so-called merit pay is often measured by imperfect or biased metrics, that it can foster unhealthy competition and erode teamwork, and that unions have historically been essential to securing fair wages, safe workplaces, and due process protections that benefit not just workers but the quality and stability of public services overall.