[flagged]
The expenses tracking revenue does rather paint a picture.
No individuals should be donating to wikipedia, it is clear that any donation will be spent as rapidly and as wastefully as possible.
Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm
81–90 of 377 posts
Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
The linked article doesn't even come close to suggesting money laundering. It really just argues that Wikimedia is similar to virtually every other successful organization on earth and that its bloat grows with its resources. Wow insightful. The mere existence of The Mythical Man-Month or Peopleware does not prevent this behavior. Turns out it's actually super, super hard to avoid. It's pervasive enough to have sever…
Money laundering has become a default catch all term for "monetary misuse / suboptimal allocation". At least among the general public. I worked in AML tech for a bank earlier in my career. I put up a fight against this misuse of terminology for a while, but eventually just gave up. Just embrace that everything is money laundering to many people and life is easier.
> Money laundering has become a default catch all term for "monetary misuse / suboptimal allocation".
No it definitely has not
Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm
#83> 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 wi…
> we have heard from some staff members that they felt pressured because the organizers would know how they decided
This is a statement written by their lawyers to activate the NLRB secret balloting process.
The company is supposed to accept the union cards unless they have reason to believe that the cards were signed under duress (the popular image of "union thugs" with baseball bats intimidating people).
Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
When strikes are legal is really complicated and depends on industry. The thing to understand is that labor law in the US was created to "reduce labor strife." Unions existed before they were recognized as legal. What labor law tries to do is make an orderly process with the goal is no strikes and a mutually agreed-on contract. The company recognizing the union is the first step towards a contract. Basically it's say…
This reminds me of the German approach to street marches. They are allowed, must be registered with the police, and the police will ensure there are several policemen around for each protestor just in case any of them "try anything". The police form a box around the protest, restricting it from going anywhere not approved and restricting people from seeing the signs; they also blare their sirens so that the chants can't be heard outside the box. The cost of all this is, of course, billed to the protest organiser.
So as you can see, they have incredible free speech! They allow just anyone to carry out a street march!
Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is interesting how "enshittification" just happens because of scale.
People are really not curious enough about bureaucracy . We complain literally our entire lives about "bureaucracy" and all the bad outcomes it produces. But I've met literally no one who thought "hmm... if there's this emergent phenomenon across virtually every single large-scale human endeavor... and that phenomenon seems to systematically produce undesirable outcomes... at the cost of billions of dollars or millio…
People have been told for so long that private companies are more efficient than government that they have started to simply believe it, as if the problems of large scale organisation aren't universal.
Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I envision a scenario where the foundation just tries to drag out the process as long as possible because that's the best they can do in the situation they're in.
I envision this because I've seen the same strategy used elsewhere myself (in the unionization context) and delaying to wear down opponents is a common strategy (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay,_Deny,_Defend)
> They followed a process.
Both of the processes require collecting signatures in the same way, the difference is what happens afterwards and when. Even for the election they would have to collect signatures, so claiming that collecting the signatures was somehow "wrong" for not being a secret vote suggests either a lack of understanding or intentionally trying to muddy the waters.
Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm
#87[flagged]
This makes it look like the goal of the union is to get into the piggy bank, rather than reverse some kind of hellish work environment.
Fair compensation is a legitimate reason for unions.
I don't know much about this situation, but I know it is possible for unions to basically be a group of drama-oriented bullies that pressure their coworkers to join. A secret ballot seems like the right way to ensure it actually reflects the will of the employee base.
Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
My dad worked for the United States Postal Service for decades. He never joined the union, but he was still legally required to pay union dues, and the union was still legally required to represent him. So at least in some cases, yes, starting a union does affect all employees and practically requires them to "join" even if there's an option to not join on paper.
Wouldn't it be better to join so that you can have a vote in the union operations, including to disband it?
Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money laundering has become a default catch all term for "monetary misuse / suboptimal allocation". At least among the general public. I worked in AML tech for a bank earlier in my career. I put up a fight against this misuse of terminology for a while, but eventually just gave up. Just embrace that everything is money laundering to many people and life is easier.
> Money laundering has become a default catch all term for "monetary misuse / suboptimal allocation". No it definitely has not
Among the generally misinformed public, which I was clearly referring to, yes, it absolutely has. Everything is money laundering.
Do you think I was literally saying the financial definition has changed?
Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm
#90I'm hardly a fan of the WMF, but the headline is clickbait. The WMF has used a law firm called Jones Day for brand and trademark management for over a decade. The firm is one of the largest legal firms in the US and it also does union busting, but a) the WMF does not appear to have engaged them for that, and b) the relationship long predates the current kerfuffle.