It's often said that tech workers have no need for unions and (not to reopen that box yet again!) this is exactly the kind of scenario where tech workers could benefit from union representation, even if they're highly paid. Absent that these companies can do more or less whatever they want with remote workers, they're not a protected class.
I'm just pointing out that unions don't mean you get everything you want.
Sure, a crap union is a crap union. But union representation in general is more likely to result in the rights of remote workers being protected than, what, asking nicely?
In most countries, this didn't happen out of nowhere.
900 US school districts because they can't retain teacher talent otherwise: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-districts-4-day-week-tea... | https://www.ncsl.org/education/four-day-school-week-overview
If Meta faced a complete strike similar to writers' strike, their workers could achieve similar goals like writers did.
Or not - but nobody promises it, that's silly.
Maybe not, but if the companies can band together and collectively decide what is best for employers[1], then it's only fair that employees should be able to band together and collectively decide what is best for employees.
Unions are for collective negotiation; getting what you want is a nice side-effect of collective bargaining.
[1] Yeah, don't tell me that they don't collude. Actual communications between them is not required for collusion.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's unfair for employees to form unions if they want. Employees who want to do that absolutely should be able to.
Not everyone wants to be in a union and employees who don't want to be should also be able to do that.
For example, if the Games Industry (using them as an example because they're notoriously the worst work-life) unionized, a shop could tell their management "No, we will not engage in crunch for a month."
Like how a fire suppression system doesn't prevent you from burning your food, unions are there to prevent bigger issues.