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

241–250 of 300 posts

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#241

Post by Giefo6ah »

DrBazza wrote: post #177
shit_game wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The reverse is true. Unionization of the UK car industry in the 1970s, more than played its part in the collapse of the UK car industry, for example: > The company became an infamous example of the industrial turmoil that plagued the United Kingdom in the 1970s. Action by unions frequently crippled BL manufacturing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland#1975%E2%80%931... 'work deserves to be compensated fairl…

The labour theory of value is Adam Smith's, not Marx's.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#242

Post by khriss »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #230
functionmouse wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work at a call center for a large (fortune 500) company. But that company did not sign my paychecks. It was a shell company with a different name, so that the company could not be held accountable when someone inevitably jumped from the roof. Since then accountability sinks have stood out to me. I'm going to side with the Union on this one. And plus, unions are good.

Good? They've been a mixed bag in my life. Unions are made up of people and they come with all of the good and bad of people. I watched a union refuse to support a colleague of mine. Why? Because the people in the union were competing against him for resources and they wanted him gone. And they succeeded. I've never really liked unions after that. I suppose I can see some good, but for the most part the union ends up…

If we are going by anecdotes, then I suspect the number and scale of anecdotes of capital misusing it's power are going to vastly outnumber unions doing the same.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#243

Post by kennywinker »

oh_no wrote: post #30
kennywinker wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was only a matter of time until rent-seeker(s) would come along and try to get it. So, the people who helped create the valuable dataset are “rent seekers” now? Must be using a different definition of rent seeking than any i’ve heard.

Foundation didn't create the dataset, just the framework for volunteers to do the work.

Yes, and? Could the dataset have been created without the framework?

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#244

Post by true_religion »

some_random wrote: post #212
throw93949444 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just link original author, and do notndestroy their work, even copyleft license wikipedia uses demands that!

If editing an article opens you up to copyright lawsuits for "destroying their work", it's completely untenable.

With a moral rights framework, that depends on the content of the edit.

If for example you edit in racist views and leave the attribution of the original author because it’s just a one word change from “the holocaust” to “the alleged holocaust”, then yes you are open to a lawsuit for any harm that results from that malicious edit.

This is especially true with my example as that view would run afoul of criminal statue in many counties.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#245

Post by kennywinker »

nickff wrote: post #37
kennywinker wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was only a matter of time until rent-seeker(s) would come along and try to get it. So, the people who helped create the valuable dataset are “rent seekers” now? Must be using a different definition of rent seeking than any i’ve heard.

The employees of the Wikipedia foundation did not create the dataset, though they definitely contributed to the infrastructure behind it. Sam Altman (and the OpenAI employees) contributed even more to OpenAI's continuing success (and that of their industry). Both groups are still rent-seekers, as they are attempting to profit off a market position which was developed under different auspices.

Oh, i don’t think I realized you were calling wikimedia rent seekers - not just the employees.

I guess that does vaguely match the description of rent seeking. But given that the alternative is handing the AI companies the wikipedia data set for free, so they can rent-seek with it - i’m not sure I care about that.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#246

Post by kennywinker »

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…

Oddly enough, employers will often give wage increases more easily than other concessions. I’ve seen at least two union negotiation go that way - employees seeking better working conditions are given a hard no on something they are asking for like advance notice of scheduling changes but offered a wage increase in exchange.

Also, a 5% raise is approximately what inflation is likely to be this year (2.8% in the UK as of may) so if that’s all they get that’s basically a wage freeze.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#248

Post by iamacyborg »

arethuza wrote: post #232
iamacyborg wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another UK example, you effectively have very limited rights until you’ve worked for a company for 2 years. Before then they can fire you for any reason they care to.

I think that is changing though: https://www.business.gov.uk/campaign/employment-changes/

who knows what's going to happens with yet another leadership change though.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#249

Post by psychoslave »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #230
functionmouse wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work at a call center for a large (fortune 500) company. But that company did not sign my paychecks. It was a shell company with a different name, so that the company could not be held accountable when someone inevitably jumped from the roof. Since then accountability sinks have stood out to me. I'm going to side with the Union on this one. And plus, unions are good.

Good? They've been a mixed bag in my life. Unions are made up of people and they come with all of the good and bad of people. I watched a union refuse to support a colleague of mine. Why? Because the people in the union were competing against him for resources and they wanted him gone. And they succeeded. I've never really liked unions after that. I suppose I can see some good, but for the most part the union ends up…

So, coming with its own pitfalls. How does it feel however with no counter power at all in similar structures, in your own experience?

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#250

Post by rjh29 »

teachrdan wrote: post #239
xhkkffbf wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good? They've been a mixed bag in my life. Unions are made up of people and they come with all of the good and bad of people. I watched a union refuse to support a colleague of mine. Why? Because the people in the union were competing against him for resources and they wanted him gone. And they succeeded. I've never really liked unions after that. I suppose I can see some good, but for the most part the union ends up…

> I watched a union refuse to support a colleague of mine. Why? Because the people in the union were competing against him for resources and they wanted him gone. And they succeeded. I've never really liked unions after that Wait until you see what management does to workers, like fail to pay them on time, give them inhumane working conditions, or fire them arbitrarily. Sarcasm aside, I've never understood this genre…

I've noticed a lot of Americans have an anti-union sentiment, probably a product of indoctrination.
Post reply on HN