Developer work is too varied to have a single consistent voice. Drop the union idea, the word has too much baggage and becomes a huge people management issue. Turn it into what developers do best, build an app/api.
I'm not sure if this idea will make too much sense; I need to see if I can find some time to explore it a little more. I could see building an app/api which is a mixture of a news/issue aggregator and a remote config editor.
Figure out how to surface issues to developers in a consistent way. Then let developers decide which issues matter to them, and how to deliver updated configs. Then let developers decide how to use the api/config from there. Maybe some apps will decide to disable in-app purchases for some time period, maybe some will alter code-flows to use a competitor of a big company, maybe some app will praise some company for their stance on some issue. The developers need to be in full control at all times though. The api would let developers read the remote config from their apps.
Maybe it just turns into a remote config service, and the activism part gets lost... but it might work as a vehicle for this kind of activism too.
Perhaps "union" is too loaded of a word. My intentions was for a body that can collectively bargain on behalf of developers against companies that right now are treating them as they will since as individuals they have no leverage or recourse.
Unions originally worked because they could stop the flow of all labor (union or not) into a job site. Now there is a legal process that avoids the violent bits, but it doesn't really apply to the current situation.
Moreover,the equivalent to a picket line is what, a DDOS? Shit will get you sent to jail, yo.
The structure of desirable APIs <-> Developers makes collective bargaining not super useful.
No, it's much more simple than that. Developers can simply cut their apps from the ecosystem for a short while. Or move to another platform in large numbers. Just the threat of each action should cause those companies to consider some concessions.
You're missing the point. Individual workers or developers are replaceable, and at a serious power disadvantage. A union works by blocking all access to labor, and requiring the company to negotiate with the union alone. Unions used to do this by physically blocking non-union workers from going to job sites, today there are formal legal processes. There is no alternative to either method available to developers for closed platforms. If you opt out of developing for the more lucrative platforms, there are plenty of people willing to replace you.
I know it's more complicated than that and that there are exceptions, and that over time some places become hybridized. I'm still right.
I'm not sure if this idea will make too much sense; I need to see if I can find some time to explore it a little more. I could see building an app/api which is a mixture of a news/issue aggregator and a remote config editor.
Figure out how to surface issues to developers in a consistent way. Then let developers decide which issues matter to them, and how to deliver updated configs. Then let developers decide how to use the api/config from there. Maybe some apps will decide to disable in-app purchases for some time period, maybe some will alter code-flows to use a competitor of a big company, maybe some app will praise some company for their stance on some issue. The developers need to be in full control at all times though. The api would let developers read the remote config from their apps.
Maybe it just turns into a remote config service, and the activism part gets lost... but it might work as a vehicle for this kind of activism too.