Or not. I certainly wouldn't want to be part of a union.
* increased compensation
* accelerated equity vesting
* cap on required hours (no more mandatory crunch time)
* increased vacation time
* protection from your job becoming off-shored
* access to better development tools
* better working environment (offices or cubicles instead of open plan)
* etc.
Put another way: Why do you (and tech workers in general) assume that you currently have personally negotiated the best possible work arrangement for yourself that the company could offer, and that no collective effort could possibly produce a better outcome?
Even assuming a union would bring most of those benefits, it would only be for a short time until the company could move my job to somewhere without a union. There's no protection from having your job off-shored beyond providing good value to your employer.
Beyond that I don't want to deal with union bosses and union dues and the fact that part of my paycheck ends up supporting politicians I don't want in office. I don't want to work in a place where the company can't get rid of underperformers, or where seniority is more important than ability. I don't want to work in a place populated by people who are comfortable working in a union shop.
If I wanted all that I'd work for the government.
Or is it because employers always spontaneously pay the highest wages they possibly can and never, ever treat employees unethically let alone break the law?
Or is that because the current political system is so very, very good at protecting the interests of employees or because market forces do it so very, very, well?
The question of relevance is whether an employee is better off or not. And when organized, employees always enjoy high wages and better conditions.
And, whether organization is personally annoying or not, as a lone individual you will have essentially no power to protect yourself let alone your profession in anyway.