Cartlization / collusion of labor makes sense when the differential between the best and worst performers is relatively small. The best coal miner might swing

Cartlization / collusion of labor makes sense when the differential between the best and worst performers is relatively small. The best coal miner might swing his pick 50% or 75% faster than the worst. The best janitor might do a 40% better job of emptying trash cans. Given that it's the conventional wisdom around here that some engineers are 10x as productive as others, why would any good techie want to join a union? If one ever did form (and this is far from the first call for it, and they've never come anywhere close to success), you're going to get adverse selection - only the weakest techies (those who worry that they can't cut the mustard and will be fired without a union) will join. In that way, a union - if membership was optional - would be a great thing: it would let us identify the bottom 50% of the labor pool in seconds.