They don't serve the workers, they serve themselves (like pretty much any organization).
Unions are owned/compromised of workers. Workers vote on issues that affect them.
Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries.
Absolutely true, but if demand wasn't so high and supply wasn't so short, what happens to worker leverage and treatment?
Many software companies offer equity, which makes employers the shareholders. What's good for shareholders is also good for a lot of tech employees.
Equity compensation is a result of the pressures of a competitive labour market. If companies could get away with not handing out equity, they would. But since the other guys are paying so well, they are forced to up the ante.
Also, barriers to entry in software are almost 0. If you can't get someone to treat you well, you can have your own software company paying your bills in 6 months, or VCs funding your startup.
An exaggeration. You're not getting hired at the big players without a degree and/or significant experience. Software engineering != entrepreneurship. The majority of software devs would not be able to pay their own bills after 6 months of working on their own projects. Most projects fail.
There is a reason all the big sports leagues are unionized with player associations (also highly skill specialized, limited labour supply pool). They are able to negotiate for 50% of league revenue and establish protections. There are downsides; the highest earners are giving up their ability to earn true market wage (ex: a salary cap creates a wage maximum on an individual). But in general I've never heard a pro athlete say that the union has not given them measurable benefit and otherwise higher long term gain.
As you might have noticed, voting is no guarantee that good leaders are elected, nor does it necessarily prevent corruption.
"We the people" is a founding myth, and it's our myth, but it's still a political myth similar to the divine right of kings, a way of justifying the rule of the many by the few. The leaders are not the masses, no matter what anyone pretends.
(I'm not saying I have a better idea, but let's not be naive about principal-agent problems.)
A representational "democracy", compared to other systems, has the least potential for corruption.
If unions do in fact give workers more representation/power, than game theory says it is a worthwhile trade off, as we expect average worker gains to be net positive of any corruption losses.
Corruption usually happens on jobs with low pay that noone really want to do but does it anyway due to a good cause. But once in a while you get people that are driven by power and glory, and if the position holds any power they will use it to their own advantage.
Direct democracy has less of a potential for corruption than representative, especially non nested (separate tires) party based representative democracy.
In direct democracy, a decision still needs to be made on what to vote on. As an example, if you look at California propositions, these aren't necessarily all that well drafted. Often propositions are created by business interests and approved by people coming out of stores who aren't thinking very carefully about what petitions they sign.
And after that point, you're putting an algorithm is in charge of making the final decision. This isn't necessarily better than having a leader in charge, because the leader can maybe think of creative compromises and the algorithm can't.
If you study voting systems you'll see they all have flaws, and they are all very simple-minded algorithms compared to people. Whether they actually capture the "will of the people" is impossible to say since the "will of the people" isn't really a thing. There are just people with a lot of different opinions.
Their talent is their leverage. Some players get paid $100m+ for their talent.
Athletes' unions exist to protect the players at the bottom, who are just talented enough to play at the professional level but aren't superstars, like the offensive line in football or the bench players in basketball.
Notably: many of the athletes' unions predate the era of the monopolistic sports leagues. (The modern NFL, MLB, and NBA are all the products of the mergers of smaller leagues, and their players' unions formed before they achieved monopoly status.)
Unions are owned/compromised of workers. Workers vote on issues that affect them.
Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries.
Absolutely true, but if demand wasn't so high and supply wasn't so short, what happens to worker leverage and treatment?
Many software companies offer equity, which makes employers the shareholders. What's good for shareholders is also good for a lot of tech employees.
Equity compensation is a result of the pressures of a competitive labour market. If companies could get away with not handing out equity, they would. But since the other guys are paying so well, they are forced to up the ante.
Also, barriers to entry in software are almost 0. If you can't get someone to treat you well, you can have your own software company paying your bills in 6 months, or VCs funding your startup.
An exaggeration. You're not getting hired at the big players without a degree and/or significant experience. Software engineering != entrepreneurship. The majority of software devs would not be able to pay their own bills after 6 months of working on their own projects. Most projects fail.
There is a reason all the big sports leagues are unionized with player associations (also highly skill specialized, limited labour supply pool). They are able to negotiate for 50% of league revenue and establish protections. There are downsides; the highest earners are giving up their ability to earn true market wage (ex: a salary cap creates a wage maximum on an individual). But in general I've never heard a pro athlete say that the union has not given them measurable benefit and otherwise higher long term gain.