Unions can be a way for likeminded workers to pool together lobbying efforts. How would such a law right now be proposed and advanced? Certainly not by the lobbying arms of Big Tech.
I don't know who, and I agree that in theory they could.
In practice though, I fear, they will be overtaken by parasites, will advance bureaucratic BS, political opinions, protections for people who game the system, start mandating nonsense technological choices, hurt the efficiency, and just drive the well-paying industry into a ground, forcing capital to just move software companies into places that are better for business.
You fear all of that, as if tomorrow a tech industry union could spring up fully formed, an IWW out of Big Bill Haywood's forehead. Yes, unions are imperfect and American unions often especially so. But why be limited by past history? Why couldn't a new union based in a comparatively young industry write new rules and determine new practices? Why be limited by the problems of the past? That's what is so puzzling about tech critics of labor unions; if we think we can innovate upon and disrupt every other damn thing, why do we also insist that labor unions will inherently experience the same set of problems? And if labor unions are so bad, why not at least propose something new that could address the problems that they were intended to solve?
> forcing capital to just move software companies into places that are better for business.
Surely this would have been the case for movie studios, given that every actor they do business with is a member of SAG-AFTRA. Movie stars can command multi-million dollar contracts with studios with the help of SAG-AFTRA, and the same union protects everyone down to the background actors. Yet studios remain in the US despite your fear that they'd leave.
