> engineers can "collectively bargain" with Google by simply leaving and working somewhere "better".
That is literally the opposite of what "collective" means. You seem to be trying to argue against unionization by circular logic, by claiming that it doesn't work because market forces do the same thing because unionization isn't necessary.
I mean, it's easy to do that in the case of FAANG employers who already pay very high salaries. But they make outrageous profits too. What's the argument that the already-highly-paid engineers shouldn't get a bigger share?
That is literally the opposite of what "collective" means. You seem to be trying to argue against unionization by circular logic, by claiming that it doesn't work because market forces do the same thing because unionization isn't necessary.
I mean, it's easy to do that in the case of FAANG employers who already pay very high salaries. But they make outrageous profits too. What's the argument that the already-highly-paid engineers shouldn't get a bigger share?