Wouldn't they be able to get a much higher comp by interviewing with other local tech firms? If so, why don't they? Seems more effective than waiting and hoping for a small increase through the union.
Tech isn't hyper-individualist. It just leans slightly to the individual, because any half-decent tech worker is worth a lot to an organisation, and they don't need a union rep to negotiate on their (and hundreds of other people's) behalf.
I presume you support free markets, so I'm surprised that supply and demand never crossed your mind as the reason for high tech salaries.
Professional athletes, actors, and screenwriters enjoy both high salaries and union protections.
No need to be surprised - it more than crossed my mind.
> Professional athletes, actors, and screenwriters enjoy both high salaries and union protections
Well, screenwriters aren't in the same ballpark as the other two, but the highly paid athletes and actors are not having their wages negotiated by a union rep. They have agents. Most actors are barely paid anything, and have union membership.
Food service and retail workers are not widely unionized. Do they have high salaries?
> the highly paid athletes and actors are not having their wages negotiated by a union rep
So then you understand even with a union, workers can be free to negotiate their own wages. The union doesn't necessarily hold superstars back from earning their true market value.
Precisely why it's always under attack. Corps with simple technical objectives accrue thousands of developers into an org chart so dense it's a productivity black hole: anything to justify keeping wages down for the actual workers.
TLDR: I'm not telling anyone what to do.
Finally, if everyone just leaves their jobs without trying to improve them, won't everyone run out of places to jump to eventually?