I just don't know, all these points sound so weirdly out of touch with reality, it feels like we live in a world of children and there are no parents anymore.

Point 1: Only getting fired for a good reason? Who decides what a good reason is? The boss right? So what are we even doing here, what's the hidden implication? They want a foot in the door to be able to argue that X wasn't really a good reason and they'll strike over it. If I were a company owner/boss I would want to be able to fire people who are terrible to be around, argumentative for no good reason. Is that a good reason? They would think no because it's a personal fit issue. And yet it's totally legitimate, people don't get hired all the time over "fit" but then you can't fire over "fit". Everytime I have to deal with such colleagues I always think "man if I were a boss, I'd just fire such people, it's so obviously poison for the work environment". Arguing effectively is important but because it's so important it's a great duty to not use it as a tool for personal benefits.

Point 2: Pay discrepancies for "women or people of color" could easily have real world reasons, maybe they really are just worse at their job, less engaged, less ambitious, whatever it is that causes less pay. It's not impossible for this to be the case, no matter how uncomfortable that may be for everyone. Yes really. Yes really really. It can absolutely be true. You might even have a situation where every worker from Russia is just worse at their job. Or the majority of workers that are e.g hindu are just worse for whatever reason that a company can't fathom. It may even be the case that everyone who is white is worse for whatever reason, maybe they are too comfortable, who knows, none of this is impossible and none of this is the job of the company to figure out. I need to have the legal power to pay worse people less money or we are in a situation where you just levied a massive hidden tax on my company. You want me to subsidize worse performers in some strange hope that this is going to help the country as a whole to be nicer. Well having a nicer country would be fantastic, I just want you to be clear that you are issuing massive, gigantic new taxes with these so called anti-racist, anti-sexist rules and it's not just a tax on the company, it also hurts the psychology of all the better workers, so you are hurting society in general. Who is going to count the cost at the end? Why work harder after all if you can just have a certain genetic profile or protected political class and then you'll get free money. What such people who push for this are always implying is that the company is hurting itself in sexist, racist confusion, the implication is that these people are underpaid for the value they provide and the company is too incompetent to see it. The union or government in their infinite wisdom is going to force the company's racists/sexists/homophobes to finally pay according to the real value of these workers and the only metric that they will use to determine the real value is genetics and political class. Absurd isn't even a strong enough word to describe it. Even in the theoretical best case scenario for such a rule where you truly have identical value from two different people, why reward the person that doesn't want to negotiate for more pay? What we should actually do is maybe look at workers' family situation and give people who can't negotiate effectively due to raising kids that they get a government tax bonus. But wait, that is already the case! People who have kids can already get a tax bonus.

Point 3: Yes it would be nice if we could all work how we want but how is that a legitimate negotiable thing for the union to involve itself in? If the company thinks that home office doesn't work for them then who is the union to say otherwise?!

The entire mindset here is so utterly divorced from reality, it's like a luxury daycare where the kids complain that some other kid got a slightly better piece of the pie.