In a business with so many opportunities, it makes little sense to organize. I've met a few Software Engineers here in the US who talked about unionization, including some who were actually in one of the minor Software Engineering unions, but they were invariably among the bottom performers.
For the top 50%, unionization would mean lower wages and benefits; for lower income workers in fields without well-established pay-for-performance policies, that's a different story.
What you describe is class warfare of mass workers and elite. I would say high performers are also more easy to switch to another place, and more importantly, they may/should have stronger morals to not give in to company demands, make some temporary sacrifices, and generally to do the right thing. That's how a healthy society should function.
Weird how people who anonymously comment on behalf of tech bosses claim "pay-per-performance" policies while most high-performing developers report it being easier to get a raise by being poached than within their extant tenure
Your comment feels like a regurgitation of the lie propagated by employers to discourage people from forming unions. Employers spread these lies because they know they only stand to lose from unions.
Top performers won’t lose anything after unionizing. That’s the entire point of a union - to provide employees with leverage to not only keep their current incentives, but to expand them.
The important thing to realize here is that companies are not our friends. Not even if we are top performers. The reason why top performers feel like they don’t need a union is because they have the illusion of leverage. Unions grant real and greater leverage by default, to all employees.
For the top 50%, unionization would mean lower wages and benefits; for lower income workers in fields without well-established pay-for-performance policies, that's a different story.