[quinequine]

Good point but you misunderstood my argument. It's in the interests of corporations to push up supply and if you look they are doing just that.

My concern is that without a counterbalance of developers advocating in the interest of the workforce; individuals will always be at a disadvantage.

Why? In a business everything comes second to profits and the accumulation of capital. Anyone who has worked at a startup outside of the US coasts knows this well.

I'm not saying we employ the old methods of unionization, but what am I saying is that we need collective bargaining.

It's up to us to identify a modern model that addresses your concerns.

[gigatexal]

I don't subscribe to all or nothings. Nobody is "always" a jerk. Nobody is "always" lazy. Neither are companies solely profit motivated. We don't live in a pure capitalist environment. This isn't a Ayn Rand novel. For example why would Google pay for free food for employees, why would other startups invest in so many "perks" to appease their employees.

I just think unions would dilute the market with highly paid developers on average but then average developers. Once you get the title of developer and get to be part of this union all developers regardless of skill would be paid the same. How is that fair? (If that's not how unions work then I cede my point).

[krapp]

Companies don't offer perks out of the kindness of their hearts, they do so as an investment out of which they expect a greater return.

The cost of things like "free food" is usually paid for with lower salaries, longer work hours or cuts to benefits. In other words, if the value of a perk is n, then the company offering that perk is extracting a greater than n value from their employees elsewhere, without compensation, or else passing the cost on to customers, or both.

TANSTAAFL.