Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, really putting the liberal in neoliberal. Never mind that existing efforts to organize engineers, such as the Tech Workers Coalition, mostly comprise those who often have leftist sympathies, and the caricature nativist union member is mostly an artifact of the 19th century, the above comment both ignores that most modern unions don't end up being xenophobic- are the Teamsters or the SEIU xenophobic?, and international trade unions exist.
The problem with building a powerful weapon is that one day the weapon may be trained on you. Of course it isn't dangerous when it's just parts. But one day, when you've finished building it, someone will take possession of the weapon, and you won't control where they point it.
Jeremy Corbyn has taught me that closing borders and leftist sympathies are not in opposition. And what will you do when that weapon is trained on my friends? Apologize in shock at how your ideals have been usurped? Apologize and say that it was a trade-off that must be made? Say that your priorities have shifted? No, that's not nearly enough. The weapon must simply not be built.
Jeremy Corbyn lost the election, his chance for higher political power is over, so your fear would seem misplaced. Furthermore, you talk abstractions of political power (ignoring the fact that by participating in the forging of a weapon, you can put in the necessary safeguards and checks and balances to keep it a well-regulated arm), but fail to talk about the realities of working conditions and labor relations. By putting yourself in opposition to such a project, you cede any chance you have to shape the future of it, and stubbornly commit yourself to not building the aforementioned safeguards. You do you, but it sure sounds like an irresponsible abdication of power. At least libertarians who are anti-union because they perceive it as unnecessarily stifling to individualistic workers are honest about it, and don't bandy about some outdated bogeyman of Red Jezza as their excuse for being against unions.
He's an example to illustrate that leftist sympathies mean nothing. Not worried about Corbyn anymore, obviously, since he's a spent force.
I'm not a political wheeler-dealer. I know where I fall short and I'll be easily bypassed in any attempt to put these safeguards in (even were they possible) by people with vastly more experience and skill at this than me.
Anyway, you don't need me, or any of the 2% who are immigrants, to succeed. But go try them, see what they think, if you care. Everyone's seen USTW's Muni ads. Everyone knows that fear lying underneath them. Not a one is convinced by TWC ending up ultimately different. Think what you want if it makes you feel better. When push comes to shove, I'm sure we'll know the truth.
USTW are an inflammatory noisy bunch, but their influence- even the public's awareness of their existence- appears to be pretty limited. I've only encountered them before on Twitter because their name is so generic; your comment is literally the only result for "USTW" on this entire website. The current administration's protectionist policies likely do not stem from their lobbying efforts, if any, but from the general nativist attitudes of the incumbent. The U.S. Techworkers is also a very different organization:
> Not a one is convinced by TWC ending up ultimately different.
Are they even aware of the existence of the TWC? Or that they're very, very different from the USTW? It's not exactly as if those who might support the latter aren't already vehemently against the latter:
> I'm not a political wheeler-dealer. I know where I fall short and I'll be easily bypassed in any attempt to put these safeguards in (even were they possible) by people with vastly more experience and skill at this than me.
The whole point of a union, or a democratic republic, or any sort of participatory organization is that you can join like-minded people to influence the future of the organization. That way, at risk minorities can have their voices heard and participate in a larger project that can protect their interests.
That said, all of this academic because the libertarian/atomized individualist current of the tech industry makes the prospect of a tech worker's union more or less near-impossible, so your hysteria is largely baseless. Even if your opinion about U.S. software engineers being largely xenophobic is correct- an assertion that is complicated by the fact that SV SWEs include many immigrants, and an organization like the TWC welcomes H-1B workers into its ranks- it would seem that the USTW's almost complete lack of presence, xenophobic MUNI ads aside, would seem to indicate that individualist instincts trump xenophobia.
> The whole point of a union, or a democratic republic, or any sort of participatory organization is that you can join like-minded people to influence the future of the organization. That way, at risk minorities can have their voices heard and participate in a larger project that can protect their interests.
These groups have no intentional aim to enforce or protect any but their most dominant pressure groups. If the day comes when they have to save the union by discarding their minority participants, they will do it; and if they could do it by saving their minority participants, they will do it; and if they could do it by discarding some and saving others, no doubt they would do that too.
TWC's present welcome is no indicator of any future resolve and it will take no large amount of work for those same H1-B workers to find themselves within a brazen bull that they've built.
> ...individualist instincts trump xenophobia
Indeed, and would that it be that it is forever so. Constantly crushing the chauvinist collectivist keeps him from dominating the weak. Diffuse power strengthens the weak. Concentrated power oppresses.
> These groups have no intentional aim to enforce or protect any but their most dominant pressure groups.
That is a pessimistic view of human society, but valid. That said, you can say the same of any arbitrary organization, from a startup to a major corporation to a healthcare system. A critique of labor unions is incomplete unless you can prove that they are inherently predisposed to the tyranny you suggest. Otherwise it is just a philosophical opinion as valid as any other, an interesting abstract notion about the nature of power, but not really useful in a discussion about policy.
> Diffuse power strengthens the weak. Concentrated power oppresses.
One should also take care to remember that the market itself is not a state of nature, but a place where many entities of concentrated power already dominate, and that power is far less diffuse than one may think- and in the cases such as US v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al., these corporations are not above collaborating to dominate the weak!
I don't think they're any more inherently predisposed to tyranny. I just don't want to manufacture additional opponents when I have sufficient to deal with. Surely you understand that, being trapped in a sleeping lion's den, I would not ask you to throw in a cobra.
You are right, of course, large companies often cartelize to harm and employers inherently have more power in the relationship so it's already unbalanced. I have no objection to ad hoc organizations that form to fight singular causes, but a long-term group? It will, over time, dedicate more of its energies towards ensuring its existence and less to the cause it ostensibly espouses. And then, I expect to look in a window and see Mr. Pilkington and Napoleon arguing over their cards, and I doubt I will be able to tell which is which.
