But that's just like, your opinion man.
You speak in absolutes "Unions will..." "...better than any Union" as if these things are known quantities. There are many ways a union could function. It could set salary ranges based on all sorts of things (seniority, certifications, etc) or it could just act as a collective voice in negotiating the availability of remote work or hourly limits or other perks. A tech union doesn't have to operate the ways you're describing at all. Think about the sports leagues. They're unionized, and it's the best players who get the biggest contracts, not the one's who've been in the league the longest. There's no reason you couldn't do something similar in a tech union.
Right now things are great because this is a relatively new space with more demand than supply. That's great NOW. Long term nobody knows what could happen. Kodak thought film would always be important. Cooper isn't a profession. The idea of having a collective labor voice established during the period where labor is at its strongest could be seen as hedging your bets.
>> I think under performing tech workers deserve to not reap the same benefits as the performing engineers.
Who determines what "under performing" is? It makes more sense to me that labor's peers determine that definition, but currently it's management. This is again a place where a union can help.
You admit your system isn't perfect. I admit Unionization has flaws. I'm just of the opinion that it could help improve working conditions across the board.