[Jim_Heckler]

Wait what? What does that even mean? An engineer's union wouldn't be dictating programming practices, it would just be an instrument of worker empowerment and protection from employer negligence/greed.

Besides, unions would most certainly be more pro-open source than any corporate entity. Open source gives everyone the opportunity to be heard and have their feelings and thoughts actually affect outcomes; this is more or less the same goal of a workers union.

[rconti]

An engineer's union would be whatever its members wanted it to be. Whether you like or agree with those members or not. Whether those members are at your organization or not. Whether the decision was made last week or 30 years ago and just never changed.

Unions, like all organizations, have institutional inertia. And they do good things and bad things.

[RickJWagner]

No, I disagree.

If unions REALLY wanted everyone to have the opportunity to be heard and respected feelings, there would be no violence and intimidation when people move to cross a picket line.

It happens. It's ugly. And it shows unions are NOT about respect for anyone's feelings that don't align with the 'endorsed' way of thinking.

[ABCLAW]

>And it shows unions are NOT about respect for anyone's feelings that don't align with the 'endorsed' way of thinking.

Crossing a picket line doesn't elicit an ugly response because people are upset about how others are thinking.

It elicits a response because scabs directly undermine the union's main leverage with which they bargain collectively.

It's about power, not thought control.

[masonic]

  because scabs 

You just confirmed the comment to which you replied.

[ABCLAW]

>And it shows unions are NOT about respect for anyone's feelings that don't align with the 'endorsed' way of thinking.

The comment I replied to states unions are violent and don't care about feelings that aren't part of an 'endorsed' way of thinking. I stated another more direct reason why they would have the same reaction which has nothing to do with attempts at thought policing, but rather with their reason for existing.

Maybe the difference feels subtle, but it's an important one.

[masonic]

And this justifies your "scabs" slur how, exactly?

[ABCLAW]

Well, I clearly don't align with your preferred endorsed way of thinking. You're free to mentally edit 'scab' to 'strikebreaker' if that helps you out, but I prefer to use the shorter, more recognized term.

I've got a feeling you aren't interested in discussing the actual argument that unions aren't primarily attempting thought control, and that 'thoughts' aren't the reason for violence in the event that people cross the picket line. It's the fact that the act is taking bread out of people's mouths.

If the term 'scab' upsets you a great amount, please note that in the majority of the western world, the use of scabs is restricted or illegal. Accordingly, their use is often in the context of illegal attempts to undermine labour's negotiating leverage during strikes. The US is the notable exception to this trend, largely due to judicial interpretation, rather than direct legislative efforts.