I was pretty darn clear in saying wealth inequality, not income inequality. Also, inter-industry disparity doesn't matter in this case: your argument would apply equally to NFL players who are unionized, but it doesn't matter that their compensation is high relative to the average American, what matters is getting a higher share of the profit from management/owners in a highly profitable industry.

Similarly in tech, unions can be a way of gaining greater profit sharing for the high-skilled workers necessary for the business to function. Where tech workers lie in income percentile is irrelevant and distracting to this question.

Income and wealth are not disjoint concepts. Income begets wealth, and wealth begets income.

From a societal standpoint, it doesn't particularly aid widespread inequality if a small number of tech workers receive a bump in income; the union may cause the situation to worsen, as the union has an incentive to keep the supply of employees restricted in order to maximize their compensation. The unionized employees would be protected from public competition.

Having pro-sports players in a union hasn't exactly improved widespread inequality.

Not disjoint, but different especially when over half of all money in the US is acquired via inheritance rather than earned income during one's lifetime [0].

Moreover, much wealth (especially at the top) is held in equities, often that aren't sold before being passed on to inheritance. That means:

a. that this wealth isn't counted as income

b. that decreases in equity prices due to unionization (and corresponding decreased expected returns to owners/shareholders) will burden the non-working rich disproportionately.

Sure, it won't solve wealth inequality - but where there is a zero-sum tradeoff, that tradeoff will mostly be from rich tech owners + management to affluent tech workers, not from the rest of society to the tech workers.

[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/people-l...

Because income disparity has larger effects that will in the long-term screw over tech workers as they have the rest of society. In the Bay Area alone, income disparity coupled with housing shortage has contributed to mass homelessness; cue highly-paid tech workers Tweeting about having to step over human waste on the way to work. On a national and indeed international level, income disparity leads to political upheaval as populist movements capture discontent from slipping standards of living in diminishing middle classes.

Mass homelessness isn’t related to income inequality. That’s entirely caused by a failed local government that will not permit housing fast enough to deal with the demand.

Zuckerberg making $80 billion instead of $1 billion has literally no impact on the homeless in the bay. He only buys one or two houses at most. If the Facebook employees made even more money, that would only exacerbate the housing crisis because they could bid prices much higher (thousands of Facebook employees vs 1 Zuck).

A more effective change for the Bay Area would be for tech workers to leave, not unionize. The issues spring from the market pressure that the hoards of highly-compensated tech workers place on the community.

Given that there seems to be an exodus in motion, even as unionization efforts begin, it would seem like this is an industry that can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

I suppose the union could aid the exodus by lobbying against any new positions opening in the bay area, and lobbying for existing positions to be relocated. I'm not sure how popular that would be with wealthy tech union members who like living in the bay area, though.

One thing that's been brought up in the past is that prior to this pandemic-driven WFH present (and probably is still true) is that secondary and satellite offices tend to not have limited openings or paths towards advancement. While a union might not be the best tool for the job, that seems like the sort of thing that organized employee opinion can try to influence. Maybe a lot of workers want to live and work in Austin, and management needs to invest more in the satellite office there, allow more career development opportunities, etc. This industry often seems to led by hidebound opinions that the rank-and-file often disagrees with. Fixation on Bay Area HQs, along with rejection of WFH and obsession with open offices, are examples of such policies which are seemingly only changed by something drastic as the threat of unionization- or more realistically- a worldwide pandemic.