Similar to the thread in JB about the other "S..." word, this one Seniority is also intended to be a helpful tool for the benefit of the employed folk, creating a stable intra-company environment. Yet it may twist and bend at the coal face of reality, sometimes well beyond its intended use and could become just a deadweight which will not serve its purpose well even in push came to shove. Pardon the analogy.
The discussion of whether or not we'd be better of without it will depend on what is the (non?)-implementation in the individual work environments, and what are the problems we hope to solve with it.
It is a multi-faceted device.
Salary steps.
Sick leave bank.
Career progression opportunities
- traing assignments
- fleet changes
- CAPT upgrades
Choice of base.
Leave allocation priority
Part-time contracts, extended parenting leave
Job protection in downsizing.
LOAw/pP
Rejoining options.
Pension fund and share allocation schemes.
Early retirement
Even at companies who formally do not have a Seniority system, the rules for a great number of the above would be based on the Day of Joining or similar.
No unique thoughts from me, save for one that was voiced already but I would like to join explicitly: If someone thinks seniority clause would provide protection based on LIFO during official and formal process of redundancies, and that will withstand the scrutiny at Court / Employment tribunal (continental EU rules, admittedly), a massive shock might be coming.
If you listen closely to what were the airline closures and downsizings of the past decade, LIFO decisions are typically avoided by the companies themselves in order to avoid protracted litigations, revocation, reinstallments and compensation damages.