I'm not sure the comparison to unions is proper. Let's see. Unions are about limiting freedom - limiting freedom of employees to work where the want and do what they want with they money (with unions, they can't work unless they join the union, they have to pay union duties and they have to abide by unions rules), and limiting the freedom on employers to hire (or cease to hire) anybody they want on conditions that are freely negotiated between them. Now, some may consider this limiting of freedoms beneficial and desirable, but it's limiting anyway.
Now, most of the people in free software movement are the exact opposite of that - they want to expand other people's choices and let them do more stuff, not less. However, some fraction of the movement (and I'm not going to name names, anybody is free to guess who they are) does want to limit choices of others in order to make them behave in ways they approve. They believe it is for the better of all, but however you take on that question is, you must recognize there's this agenda and the goal of it is to limit choices of other people in order to make them behave in a certain way. Of course, they do not go nearly as far as unions do - while unions may very well be able to deny you the use of your own property and work, these people would only at the worst deny you the use of the fruits of their work, not yours, which is completely different league.
So while for the most of the software movement comparison to unions is completely off base, there's some semblance of analogy between some parts of it and unions, but even there it's only hint of resemblance, far short of being in the same ballpark.
This is ridiculous - your view of unionism is way off reality. Some points just on the first paragraph:
> with unions, they can't work unless they join the union
Er. No. This is a 'closed shop' (compulsory unionism), illegal in most of the Western World, and not advocated by the great majority of unions either.
> limiting freedom of employees to work where the want and do what they want with they money
Errr. Unions don't stop employees from changing jobs or spending their money how they want. I don't understand where you get this from at all.
> limiting the freedom on employers to hire (or cease to hire) anybody they want on conditions that are freely negotiated between them
Part of the freedom to negotiate conditions is the freedom (non-compulsory) to allow a union to negotiate on your behalf. Although this doesn't always work out well for either party, I don't see how you can say that allowing a worker to appoint a union in this way is reducing anyone's freedom.
Closed shops are perfectly legal in the US. Only 23 states in the US have right-to-work laws.
"Errr. Unions don't stop employees from changing jobs or spending their money how they want. I don't understand where you get this from at all."
Unions demand (in closed shops) from employees to give them part of the money as dues, and compel them to participate in union activities (such as strikes, etc.). It is true they do not limit how they rest of the money is spent - but I never claimed they take all the freedoms away. I claimed they limit them - by requiring payments and forcing to take part in their actions.
"Part of the freedom to negotiate conditions is the freedom (non-compulsory) to allow a union to negotiate on your behalf"
This is true, however in many union shops you do not have this choice. You either accept collectively bargaining conditions or you can not be hired. You can not just come to your employer and negotiate separately. Appointing somebody to negotiate on your behalf does not limit freedom, giving him exclusive right to negotiate - and that's how many unions are working in the US - does.
> Now, some may consider this limiting of freedoms beneficial and desirable, but it's limiting anyway.
You have an odd definition of "freedom"; who is more free: the un-unionized warehouse worker who is hired by the week by a shell temp agency, or the unionized warehouse worker who can negotiate a sane contract, decent wage, and sue in cases of abuse.
No, my definition of freedom is not "odd", yours is. You are confusing "free" with "comfortable" - you can be perfectly comfortable (highly paid, well fed and cared for, respected, etc.) and be a slave (look into the ancient world - famous Aesop, for example, was a slave), or be completely free and be a penniless hobo. Freedom has nothing to do with salary. You can say you would gladly give up your freedom for a decent wage and union lawyers - fine, it's your choice. But you can not make this choice for anybody else. That's their freedom.
Now, most of the people in free software movement are the exact opposite of that - they want to expand other people's choices and let them do more stuff, not less. However, some fraction of the movement (and I'm not going to name names, anybody is free to guess who they are) does want to limit choices of others in order to make them behave in ways they approve. They believe it is for the better of all, but however you take on that question is, you must recognize there's this agenda and the goal of it is to limit choices of other people in order to make them behave in a certain way. Of course, they do not go nearly as far as unions do - while unions may very well be able to deny you the use of your own property and work, these people would only at the worst deny you the use of the fruits of their work, not yours, which is completely different league.
So while for the most of the software movement comparison to unions is completely off base, there's some semblance of analogy between some parts of it and unions, but even there it's only hint of resemblance, far short of being in the same ballpark.