Scab means exactly the same thing in the US as it does in the UK; I'm pretty sure they got it from us.
> I ask, in good faith, why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good?
That's not good faith.
> I ask, in good faith, why do you seem to imply that unions are an unqualified good?
That's not good faith.
Thank you for clarifying re: the term scab.
The only information you had was that the poster held a a strikebreaker in contempt.
As to the context:
(Grandparent) > UK has the highest tech salaries in Europeand trade unions were buried in the 70s.
(Grandparent) > I am fine if you guys seek protection of unions.
(Grandparent) > But never, ever, ever, interfere with my relations with employers.
(Parent) > As a highly paid UK tech worker, this scab does not speak for me.
The GP said that they're happy for anyone to seek the benefits of unionization, so long as they're not forced to participate. Parent simply called GP a scab for this sentiment.
This exchange, to me, seems to imply the parent believes unions to be an unqualified good- or, at least, that the simple desire for individual labor relations is worthy of unqualified condemnation.
Where do you and I diverge in this reading?
EDIT: further, how do I take better care to explicitly mitigate against my biases to ensure I engage with the full goodness of my faith?