Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

cwu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 300 posts

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#131

Post by 6510 »

sevenzero wrote: post #58
Frieren wrote: post #56

There is no reason for any employee to not search for unionization. It is your right and it is in your best interest. Good for them.

I work in a 2 man company, for sure a Union will have many advantages for me x)

If this was my blog I would have written something like the below which is entirely out of character not aimed at you and quite silly:

Republican jesus said: It would have been easier if the good Samaritan would have just taken the guys money without helping him.

I have this wild theory that civilization isn't actually about me. It means one can join a union without any direct personal benefits of any kind.

When for example my health insurance helps pay someone for their care I point first at them then at my chest and announce smugly, see? I paid for that!

No one thinks it's funny but that is not important, as long as I think it's funny it's a good joke.

The trial is over, it is now abundantly obvious that if everyone acts in their own self interest everything gets increasingly fucked up for everyone.

If you are hungry the free market gives you an advert for a sandwich you cant afford but would probably kill you slowly if you could.

Imagine retired people still being union members. Crazy right? They could have better spend their time looking at pictures of their children who never visit.

Ill let myself out

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#132

Post by throw93949444 »

weberer wrote: post #126
throw93949444 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a loophole not to employ people. "Editor" sounds like a job title! There is code of conduct, all sort of paperwork, you have to deal with comitees, editorial process... There is non disclosure agreement, you are not allowed to discus internal stuff with people outside from company... wery far from "i seen something was wrong, so i just made quick edit"! Smells like proper job to me! We closed the same loop…

>There is non disclosure agreement No there is not. You don't have to sign anything to make edits to Wikipedia. On the other hand, these people are full employees with work contracts.

There is like 50 page agreement, you even have to give up your copyright rights! The only way to do it legally in my country, is to hire editor as an employee!!! (Contractors can not legally give up copyright to their work)

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#133

Post by tovej »

aaa_aaa wrote: post #123
lucumo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no reason for any employee to not search for unionization. That's a very theoretical view. (As most absolutes are.) Unions and rules around unions can be very different depending on locality, industry and other specifics. The power and benefits a union gives a specific employee may not outweigh the cost they impose on that specific employee. Furthermore, unions are organizations. They have their own intern…

In one of my previous work, I was "forced" to enter a public union. They were simply leeches sucking government money (surprise, government was paying union premiums) through workers with almost no actual benefits. Whenever somebody glorifies Unions I just chukle.

Was this in the US? In the US, anti-union action by the government and employers has been extra egregious historically. This has obviously impacted unions in the US.

There's also LOTS of anti-union misinformation spreading in the US.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#134

Post by Ylpertnodi »

christkv wrote: post #119
chobeat wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess how those labor laws were achieved. Spoiler: unions. Same as weekends, 40-hour work week and so on. Strong unions win laws.

I don't dispute that unions were important and offer some sort of benefit. What I don't like is that most of the big unions in Europe receive a lot of governmental money and become lobbying groups for political parties. I would not consider them independent in any sense of the word.

As a union member - my union can fuck off. Dirty back-door deals, scratchy-back 'allowances', management collusion...

But, we went on strike, got a pay rise, my disciplinaries were found to be baseless, I got a pay rise they hid from us.

Swings and roundabouts, but I have got two people fired -it takes time, and it's done correctly. Or the law gets involved.

I'll take a shitty union over not.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#135

Post by aspenmayer »

nickff wrote: post #53
Apocryphon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you see the subthread that the motivation behind this union does not seem to be collective bargaining over compensation, but in response to management's decision over personnel issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48665062 Indeed, the OP does not mention increased pay at all, but rather "concerns over transparency, trust, and the organisation’s future direction." You can go ahead and call that rhetoric, b…

> ” You can go ahead and call that rhetoric, but you are also reading in intentions that do not seem to match reports from the ground.” This just seems like standard union rhetoric, like when they talk about quality, or caring about the company’s clients. If the union gets concessions on transparency, and less than a 5% raise for the first year, I’ll do my best to come back to this thread and post a retraction. I don…

In good faith I feel obligated to point out the following, so that those who may read this thread in the future don’t interpret any lack of a response on your part as an confirmation of your claims:

HN threads close automatically after a few weeks, so I don’t think that you would be able to do that even if you intend to do so.

Based on your own rhetoric, I am not convinced that you would even if you could, but I admit that parsing tone in text is difficult, and I may be mistaken. What comes across as sarcasm and hyperbole to me may be earnest and sincere to you.

In good faith, I must assume that you don’t know that HN threads close automatically, otherwise I must admit the possibility that I’m wrong, and that you do know this, and are exploiting the fact that others may not know this fact as part of your argumentative strategy.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#136

Post by 6LLvveMx2koXfwn »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #120
6LLvveMx2koXfwn wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why workers in Western Europe are so protected.

The fact that unions played a big role in the past does not imply that they are as important now because of the changes in legal protection, types of jobs, and society.

If you believe the legal protections in place as a direct result of the labour movement (of which Unions are just one part) will remain in place in the face of constant well funded opposition by Capital then I have a case study for you in the UK, we call them Zero Hours Contracts.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#137

Post by tovej »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #120
6LLvveMx2koXfwn wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why workers in Western Europe are so protected.

The fact that unions played a big role in the past does not imply that they are as important now because of the changes in legal protection, types of jobs, and society.

Those legal protections are easily eroded without unions.

Just look at Finland. Here, the current government first made it illegal for unions to strike when the government takes action to weaken employment law, and then they significantly weakened employment law.

The only protection left is collective bargaining agreements, which can still uphold some of the old legal protections through contract law.

This was also only possible after decades of work by industry lobby groups to significantly weaken unions by targeting them with tax code changes, splitting up unemployment funds from unions (with the employers then founding their own unemployment fund, so that union membership is drained).

Unions are the only defense that workers have. If there are no unions, the employer can have their pick among desperate job seekers, and give them the lowest wage they can live on.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#138

Post by one33seven »

lucumo wrote: post #113
Frieren wrote: post #56

There is no reason for any employee to not search for unionization. It is your right and it is in your best interest. Good for them.

> There is no reason for any employee to not search for unionization. That's a very theoretical view. (As most absolutes are.) Unions and rules around unions can be very different depending on locality, industry and other specifics. The power and benefits a union gives a specific employee may not outweigh the cost they impose on that specific employee. Furthermore, unions are organizations. They have their own intern…

So your point is, you have to look for a good union? Fully agreed!

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#139

Post by francisdavey »

throw93949444 wrote: post #132
weberer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is non disclosure agreement No there is not. You don't have to sign anything to make edits to Wikipedia. On the other hand, these people are full employees with work contracts.

There is like 50 page agreement, you even have to give up your copyright rights! The only way to do it legally in my country, is to hire editor as an employee!!! (Contractors can not legally give up copyright to their work) https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use

You license your contributions under an open licence. You don't give up your copyright. There would be no other sensible way to operate a collaborative encyclopedia without a license of this kind.

I (lawyer) have never encountered a jurisdiction where a contractor could not license their work under the contract with their employer (the person contracting them).

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#140

Post by lucumo »

shit_game wrote: post #121
changoplatanero wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s in the collective best interest may not match with what’s in the individual best interest. Perhaps unions are more likely to be in the self interest of the below average employees, the ones with no negotiating power. The best school teachers are almost certainly being held back by their unions and the worst ones are getting a free pass. When I worked at a unionized place I was blocked from an opportunity my em…

The rising tide lifts all boats. Denying people agency and power in their negotiation by claiming they are "not as good as someone else" is antithetical to the struggle of labor - work deserves to be compensated fairly. >When I worked at a unionized place I was blocked from an opportunity my employer offered me because it was better than what the standard negotiated terms were Your union blocked this because your emp…

> Your union blocked this because your employer was trying to break your unions negotiating power by separating your interests from the collective workforce.

Be that as it may, for this specific employee the union was a negative. In effect, he is asked to sacrifice for the collective. It's understandable that that's acceptable to the collective, but it's also not hard to see why the sacrifice wouldn't like that.

> The rising tide lifts all boats.

Apparently not ALL boats.

Post reply on HN