The programmer also loses the ability to negotiate their own wages. Collective bargaining makes sense when a labor segment has already lost that individual nego

The programmer also loses the ability to negotiate their own wages. Collective bargaining makes sense when a labor segment has already lost that individual negotiating power due to massive labor surplus. Programmers definitely aren’t in that position yet. I think selling CB as a value-add for a company by offering efficiency in negotiation kind of turns this on its head. In a labor surplus, a company just sets the wage range and offers the job - there is no negotiation overhead. It’s only in a labor shortage that companies have to get creative with incentives to compete for talent. How would a union attract that rare talent by offering fixed pay and benefit schedules any more than direct employment could? Company 1 would restrict themselves to a C-team of fixed rate programmers, while Company 2 finds A and B team talent by direct negotiation. Whether you’re the employer or the employee, Company 2 seems like a way better place to be.