> But of course if the individual employee already had the power to make employers respect his desires, then he/she wouldn't need a union. This is why I wasn't

> But of course if the individual employee already had the power to make employers respect his desires, then he/she wouldn't need a union. This is why I wasn't sure it was a defense. We're talking about software here, and the US experience is that without a union you can have not only a good job, but enormous control over your outcomes. You can trade between money, stock, benefits, and time off by changing employers, or even within a single employer. I agree with your initial breakdown: unions cannot offer every configuration an individual might want, but they can't be effective without representing lots of people. But that implies they're only worthwhile when the alternative is that without a union, most people end up unhappy. Adding collective bargaining to a field where individual bargaining works well seems harmful.