This is true for now. But software sells, and the big software companies (Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Oracle, Google, etc ...) practically have unlimited financial power. I do understand why most computers come with a Windows-tax, but it's not because of technical superiority.
The only thing that's stopping them is the fast progress of technology, and the inability to scale your production by hiring all the programmers you can get your hands on ... thank God it's still an industry that requires talent, making it very hard to beat a handful of talented engineers with 100 day-workers.
But I wouldn't bet against such groups in the future. DRM is failing because it's a poor technological solution applied to a social problem, but I'm waiting for the day when the Internet will be regulated ... it's already happening.
I agree, but I think it's something we may come to regret. While I don't see hackers unionizing, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "it's just a job" programmers do, and as they count for the majority of programmers, that might leave the rest of us in an awkward position (or not?).
I don't see unions ever becoming necessary for hackers. Such organization might become for someone with highly-specialized, non-transferrable skills, such as operating Ford auto plant equipment, or engineering Amtrak trains. If you've devoted your career and livelihood to a single company, the thinking is that that company has certain responsibilities to care for you (whether this is indeed the case is an argument for another day).
Quality programmers, on the other hand, are highly mobile, highly sought-after, and can quickly and easily upgrade and alter their skillset. They aren't married to a single company, or even a single industry.
I think unions can be can't be considered even marginally feasible unless available labor supply outstrips demand. In this case, the situation is reversed, and I can't imagine what benefit unionization could possibly bring to the programming industry.
