I agree that negotiating power is not equal and situation is not perfect. Part of the reason is people being unaware, naive etc. to negotiate such a clause away in their contract.

But a law like in CA is much better solution for cases like that, than dealing with Unions, IMO.

Unions can be a way for likeminded workers to pool together lobbying efforts. How would such a law right now be proposed and advanced? Certainly not by the lobbying arms of Big Tech.

I don't know who, and I agree that in theory they could.

In practice though, I fear, they will be overtaken by parasites, will advance bureaucratic BS, political opinions, protections for people who game the system, start mandating nonsense technological choices, hurt the efficiency, and just drive the well-paying industry into a ground, forcing capital to just move software companies into places that are better for business.

You fear all of that, as if tomorrow a tech industry union could spring up fully formed, an IWW out of Big Bill Haywood's forehead. Yes, unions are imperfect and American unions often especially so. But why be limited by past history? Why couldn't a new union based in a comparatively young industry write new rules and determine new practices? Why be limited by the problems of the past? That's what is so puzzling about tech critics of labor unions; if we think we can innovate upon and disrupt every other damn thing, why do we also insist that labor unions will inherently experience the same set of problems? And if labor unions are so bad, why not at least propose something new that could address the problems that they were intended to solve?

I mean, these are people who are proud of hacking copyright law to serve copyleft, right? Why not hack union law to serve intersection?

> forcing capital to just move software companies into places that are better for business.

Surely this would have been the case for movie studios, given that every actor they do business with is a member of SAG-AFTRA. Movie stars can command multi-million dollar contracts with studios with the help of SAG-AFTRA, and the same union protects everyone down to the background actors. Yet studios remain in the US despite your fear that they'd leave.

Engineers are a lot more fungible than movie stars.

And so are background actors and actors you've only ever seen on infomercials, yet they're represented by the same SAG-AFTRA as movie stars.

Yes, and? The reason the movie industry isn't moving is the stars, the other arrangements doesn't matter.

> If they can't, see, that's what union can do (at least try to negotiate) for you.

But we already have democratically elected representatives that can also do this for us. For instance in California, non-competes are already basically not enforceable thanks to legislative action.

As another example, see the lawsuits a few years ago that were ruled in favor of workers for wage fixing at Google and Apple.

The structures are already in place give these sorts of reasonable protections, why add another bureaucratic, big, slow, expensive, greedy organization into the mix when we can use the processes we already have? (If the argument is that government is not responsive enough, that's a problem for many other reasons too, let's fix it).

Tech workers are a subset of intellectual workers. Just because tech workers don't need those protections in GP's view doesn't mean other workers wouldn't benefit from them.

Except that unions will bring their own non-compete non-negotiable agreements.