This won't happen in software engineering as the (culturally dominant) Silicon Valley world defines it. Being a professional means that you have ethical obliga

This won't happen in software engineering as the (culturally dominant) Silicon Valley world defines it. Being a professional means that you have ethical obligations that supersede managerial authority. It's debatable how often things actually work that way, but that's the idea. On one hand, this increases your personal responsibility (you can't use "following orders" as an excuse) as a professional. On the other, the professional is protected by boards and certifications and limits on the labor supply that give him leverage, because even if he's fired, he's still certified as being worth a damn. If anyone can enter the labor market, then bosses become the sole source/record of credibility-- getting laid off is no big deal, but a bad reference can and a career-- and hold all the cards, which means that employees have no moral agency. On the other hand, if there's a minimum level of credibility to be part of the profession, then (at least in theory) each professional has sufficient credibility to work independently and therefore has no reason to fear management, and therefore can push back against unethical orders (and is required to do so). I think it's obvious that the VCs and the wage-fixing tech barons of Silicon Valley would fight such a structure, should it emerge, with all that they've got. They hold all the cards now, and a union or professional guild would threaten that, and they're very good at convincing a surprising percentage of engineers (perhaps due to the age discrimination culture, which favors naivete over experience) that interests are aligned between the side of the tech barons and investors and serial founders and that of the engineers, never mind any evidence to the contrary.