I'm in charge of educating our trainees. In Germany, this is formalized, it takes three years for the job they are trained in. I'm working in a large logistics company that has a lot of unionized workers. We have a worker's council that is very focussed on the logistics part of the company, while I'm working in the IT part.
The job we are hiring trainees for is very sought after and we have about 20-40 applicants for each opening. Right now, we have an interview with each of them, without anyone of the workers council present and then select the one we like best.
In my old company we had a test we did with all of the applicants in a room and then had an interview with the three or four that did best. For obvious reasons, that saves a lot of time. Personally, I also think it's fair, because the test recognizes neither sex nor skin color or whatever else one might discriminate against.
So I wrote such a test for this company, too. And found out that the workers council has to approve any change in procedure. So I send them the test including a set of acceptable answers. I also told them I was completely happy with any observation they'd like to do. They can come watch over the test itself and they can see any of the results. There was a lot of stalling that was pretty unprofessional and wasting time for the sake of it (like asking if I graded the test using a template, while looking at the test would have told them that that would not even be possible because it's not multiple choice).
In the end, the workers council would only allow the test, if they got the privilege to veto it's results. To me, that would invalidate it's use. If they could invalidate a test result of their chosing, why would I even do the test? It's supposed to be fair.
From my personal perspective, having a test and transparency how it's done is way better than todays system of picking a candidate behind closed doors. For everyone. So stalling it and asking for privileges I cannot grant, thereby making it impossible to change the procedure to me smells like a political agenda. They block this, so they can later trade their approval for something they want.
I'm not interested in politics, especially since my plan is supposed to be in their best interest, making the whole procedure more transparent and less employer-centric. Is there a way to proceed without the political games?