Live data from Hacker News

Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

en.wikipedia.org

31–40 of 377 posts

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#31
post #22

[flagged]

Given your other, completely insane comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49143931 I am inclined to assume that you are paid to oppose unions online. Also your recent comment history consists entirely of angry contrarianism.

GP posting account is 4 months old, 40 karma. Recently became active.

Check comment history. Does not seem to engage in productive dialogue.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that I know nothing about the topic but the article, but the article says: > [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward. Honestly, that was the point where I stopped reading and hid this story. They used a non-secret election! Fuck them tbh. Jimmy Wales is entirely right here.

They followed the process for forming a union in the US. The claim that the Foundation totally supports the right to unionize but wants to hold a secret election would be a lot more credible if this happened before the workers had a supermajority (!) of signatures collected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check

> They followed the process for forming a union in the US.

They followed a process. Secret ballots are also an established process. From your own link:

> Since the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) became law in 1935, card check has been an alternative to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) election process.

My understanding is that a secret ballot election is actually the more common scenario.

> The claim that the Foundation totally supports the right to unionize but wants to hold a secret election would be a lot more credible if this happened before the workers had a supermajority (!) of signatures collected.

Do you really envision a situation where a supermajority of signatures were collected from fully non-coerced and well-informed employees, but some union-busting magic is going to cause them to lose a secret ballot election?

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the conceptual level, unionising is simply a group of workers gathering into a group and saying we want to negotiate as a group. Usually this is done by workers to improve conditions and to have a better say when they’ve been being ignored or worse, poorly treated. Union recognition is then the company accepting that the union exists and then agreeing to meet and engage with it. Not accepting it, is usually a crap…

[flagged]

Is not what happened? WWU announced on 28 July that they would file for a union election with the National Labor Relations Board. The announcement also accused the Wikimedia Foundation of being disingenuous in their public communications:

Also on the communication by wales he says he wasn’t happy with the election because people knew who voted for, but he didn’t deny there was some kinda of election?

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#36
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the conceptual level, unionising is simply a group of workers gathering into a group and saying we want to negotiate as a group. Usually this is done by workers to improve conditions and to have a better say when they’ve been being ignored or worse, poorly treated. Union recognition is then the company accepting that the union exists and then agreeing to meet and engage with it. Not accepting it, is usually a crap…

> Lots of research shows that generally places where unions exist have better work conditions and perform better over the long term. Do you have any non-partisan sources for this? Genuinely curious. When you say perform better what do you mean specifically? And does better work conditions include better pay or just on-site conditions or something similar?

The non partisan source is the history of the industrial revolution itself.

I am not saying that you are doing this, but I tend to find that people who think we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#37

Can someone explain what "union recognition" means, concretely?

At the conceptual level, unionising is simply a group of workers gathering into a group and saying we want to negotiate as a group. Usually this is done by workers to improve conditions and to have a better say when they’ve been being ignored or worse, poorly treated. Union recognition is then the company accepting that the union exists and then agreeing to meet and engage with it. Not accepting it, is usually a crap…

Is union recognition legally required to, say, organise a strike? Do workers who participate in a strike organised by a non-recognised union expose themselves to getting fired?

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#38

Can someone explain what "union recognition" means, concretely?

“Union recognition” means the employer acknowledges that the union is the bargaining representative for a subset of employees within the organization. This comes with additional legal duties on the part of the employer, such as exclusively bargaining with the union and not attempting to negotiate directly with individuals the union represents.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#39
> we have heard from some staff members that they felt pressured because the organizers would know how they decided

in 2026? one would think wikipedia people pick up some self-help literature now and then and know how to fake a backbone until you grow one ...

( I have my own share of behaviors that I should have fixed when I was 11 so don't take this the wrong way )

What is this?

Hierarchical pressure? At freaking wikipedia? Fear of getting pressured into eventual compliance? At freaking wikipedia?

How the hell does a foundation select a board like that? And what are they gonna do? Send Napalm, Agent Orange, Sarin Gas?

There are union-busting law firms? What are they gonna do? Infiltrate your meetups?

I'm a bit baffled

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the conceptual level, unionising is simply a group of workers gathering into a group and saying we want to negotiate as a group. Usually this is done by workers to improve conditions and to have a better say when they’ve been being ignored or worse, poorly treated. Union recognition is then the company accepting that the union exists and then agreeing to meet and engage with it. Not accepting it, is usually a crap…

[flagged]

> Wikimedia Foundation is asking for an election to ensure everyone actually wants this.

Why? Does recognition entail that every worker is compelled to join the union?

Post reply on HN