[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.