You're answering a question that wasn't asked so you can bring your view on unionization into the conversation. The implicit question is whether management should, not whether they can.

It's about power to affect change in an organization. The more power you have the better systems you can establish and sustain. Unions should be brought up constantly in these threads about AI mandates and "leadership" directions.

Unions might not be the best solution, or the most practical. I'm all ears for better ways to fight back against bogus leadership. How else can software developers advocate for their interests in an environment where their power is sharply declining (non performance based layoffs, "performance" based layoffs, reduction in junior hiring, reduction in in-office perks, reduction in total comp, etc)?

Unionization is not possible while there are hundreds of millions of eager scab workers in other countries.

NAFTA wasn't inevitable. Globalization has largely been about (some) people making money as we all race to the bottom, and that has meant a steady supply of desperate people willing to sell their labor for less than the current crop of workers.

Arguably one motivation for Trump's tariffs is to onshore jobs. It's an incredibly brutish and stupid way to go about it, though. A much better way would have been to oppose NAFTA and similar global a marketplace policies, as Bernie Sanders has done for decades now (and has largely been in a pretty lonely position).

Does this imply US salaries aren't possible either?

Maybe we could tariff offshore code?

Hey now but then we couldn't have all the crypto scams and increasingly complex and insecure software layers at bottom dollar! Forgot to mention all the spyware! How are the executives supposed to get their illegal kickbacks? Won't somebody think of the nepobabies!?