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.

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.

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.

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.

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.