3 ms·

I could argue that if unions were strong and everyone had to belong to a union to participate in an economy the unions could see an advantage to controlling how

I could argue that if unions were strong and everyone had to belong to a union to participate in an economy the unions could see an advantage to controlling how you contribute to FOSS because your "free" contribution to FOSS impinges on the rights to another unionized worker's right to work. The FOSS developer would theoretically be undermining the union worker.

naravara 9y ago
When unions are huge and cover large swathes of the workforce, they tend to be more focused on the long-term health of the industry/economy. It’s when they’re small and parochial that they get really zealous about incumbency protection at the expense of everything else because they don’t have to balance competing interests the way you do when you have a bigger picture to worry about.
csydas 9y ago
Well, you certainly could, but that wasn't the argument presented or responded to. The argument you put forth was Technology's advancement was due to IT businesses, and what would the world be like if there were more Unions; but this is not really a sensible proposition because major technological advances, indeed the majority of which are driving the backbone of the world economy and technology as we know it, were developed without any of the incentives provided by a business structure. Union or not is irrelevant to such forces because they operate outside the realm of business. The idea that FOSS would be quashed under a mandatory unionized economy is not what was being discussed, and I'm not sure of the relevance of such a theoretical world in the context of what was said. It's tangential at best. What was being discussed, the advancement of technology as we've seen it, has happened independent of how employees are organized and employed. As long as there are inventive persons looking to try something new, there will be technological advancements.

naravara 9y ago

When unions are huge and cover large swathes of the workforce, they tend to be more focused on the long-term health of the industry/economy. It’s when they’re small and parochial that they get really zealous about incumbency protection at the expense of everything else because they don’t have to balance competing interests the way you do when you have a bigger picture to worry about.

csydas 9y ago

Well, you certainly could, but that wasn't the argument presented or responded to. The argument you put forth was Technology's advancement was due to IT businesses, and what would the world be like if there were more Unions; but this is not really a sensible proposition because major technological advances, indeed the majority of which are driving the backbone of the world economy and technology as we know it, were developed without any of the incentives provided by a business structure. Union or not is irrelevant to such forces because they operate outside the realm of business. The idea that FOSS would be quashed under a mandatory unionized economy is not what was being discussed, and I'm not sure of the relevance of such a theoretical world in the context of what was said. It's tangential at best. What was being discussed, the advancement of technology as we've seen it, has happened independent of how employees are organized and employed. As long as there are inventive persons looking to try something new, there will be technological advancements.