Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by inigyou » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 1:34 PM UTC

j16sdiz wrote: post #125

dofm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have gone a long way since industrial revolution. e.g. Child labor now outlawed. There is a minimum wage. (You can argue it is still way to low, but going from zero to some is a huge change) Some OSHA rules mandate employer provide safety equipment.

What you described is the result of the government acting as one big, but very conservative, union.

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

#132

Post by unknownfuture » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 1:34 PM UTC

ymolodtsov wrote: post #124

I understand why factory workers or store clerks might want a union but I'd never understand why tech workers should. I guess except the game developers but the most realistic threat vector for them is the studio shutting down, so a union wouldn't really help.

I can only assume you aren't paying attention to, and aren't personally experiencing, the impact of AI on the industry.

Power has shifted dramatically in favour of the ownership class in the last couple of years. That's precisely what unions are meant to counterbalance.

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

#133

Post by inigyou » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 1:34 PM UTC

mcmcmc wrote: post #107

inigyou wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). Where would we be without them? Smart unions are supposed to take business conditions into account. If the business is losing money, the union would recognize that and pull back a bit, because it needs to be a symbiotic relationship to last, not a parasitic one. However, businesses are rarely willing to share hon…

> Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). That’s not at all what a union is. Why else would federal workers need their own unions? The point of a union is collective bargaining power for labor. Federal workers have little to no bargaining power when budgets are set by Congress. Especially when they can’t strike.

I can't parse this comment in relation to the context.

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

#134

Post by dgellow » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 1:35 PM UTC

amazingamazing wrote: post #80

evolve2k wrote: post #16

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…

There is no evidence of unions performing better for digital services at all. Unions do make sense when physical labor and danger is involved because the demands of leadership contradict realities of human physiology like getting tired, leading to injury or death.

> Unions do make sense when physical labor and danger is involved because the demands of leadership contradict realities of human physiology like getting tired, leading to injury or death.

You mean, like actors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAG-AFTRA

Or teachers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Education_Association

Or service employees? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Employees_Internationa...

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

#135

Post by dannyw » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 1:35 PM UTC

Some people here think Wikimedia Foundation's mission is to keep Wikipedia up. That's a subset of their mission. I attribute nearly all of the blame to WMF, because their donation ads are quite deceptive.

The actual, public mission of Wikimedia Foundation:

> The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

As such, WMF spends a lot money (combined) on a splatter of projects, like funding photographers to go to events like Fifa World Cup and Cannes, and take (CC or public domain) portraits for Wikimedia Commons (https://www.wikiportraits.org); etc.

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

#136

Post by cool_dude85 » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 1:35 PM UTC

wildfireday2 wrote: post #106

cool_dude85 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as an "open shop" in the US, even under right to freeload. Union membership is determined by job classification. If you are working in a unionized environment, and your job title is a union job title, you are in the union. You will be covered by the contract your union bargains with the employer. The only question, then, is whether you pay the dues to cover the costs of union me…

You both have it mostly backwards. The Taft-Hartley act mostly bans closed shops and allows states to pass “right to work” laws making payment of any agency fees to unions optional. In no state are any employees compelled to formally join a union. In an American-style “closed shops” in a non-right-to-work state, if you don’t join the union the bargaining agreement can charge nonmembers an agency fee representing most…

Right to freeload laws work as I describe. Although no employees are forced to "join a union" in the sense of signing a piece of paper joining the union, in all cases they are union employees in practice. That is, the union collectively bargains their working conditions, the union supports them via grievance if the employer doesn't follow the contract, and so on. The right to freeload allows for such a person to get by without paying dues - that is, the cost of providing these collective bargaining and legal representation services.

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

#137

Post by saghm » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 1:35 PM UTC

amazingamazing wrote: post #80

evolve2k wrote: post #16

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…

There is no evidence of unions performing better for digital services at all. Unions do make sense when physical labor and danger is involved because the demands of leadership contradict realities of human physiology like getting tired, leading to injury or death.

> Unions do make sense when physical labor and danger is involved because the demands of leadership contradict realities of human physiology like getting tired, leading to injury or death.

Sure, the arguably most successful union in the history of the US, the Screen Actors Guild, is only useful because it kept all of those actors from being worked to death, and it has nothing to do with all of the millions of dollars that its members make yearly.

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

#138

Post by inigyou » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 1:35 PM UTC

wildfireday2 wrote: post #106

cool_dude85 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as an "open shop" in the US, even under right to freeload. Union membership is determined by job classification. If you are working in a unionized environment, and your job title is a union job title, you are in the union. You will be covered by the contract your union bargains with the employer. The only question, then, is whether you pay the dues to cover the costs of union me…

You both have it mostly backwards. The Taft-Hartley act mostly bans closed shops and allows states to pass “right to work” laws making payment of any agency fees to unions optional. In no state are any employees compelled to formally join a union. In an American-style “closed shops” in a non-right-to-work state, if you don’t join the union the bargaining agreement can charge nonmembers an agency fee representing most…

It just struck me how dystopian the phrase "right to work" is. Like, you have the right to go down the coal mine for 16 hours a day and get lung cancer! No right to get paid, though...

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

#139

Post by unknownfuture » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 1:37 PM UTC

j16sdiz wrote: post #125

dofm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have gone a long way since industrial revolution. e.g. Child labor now outlawed. There is a minimum wage. (You can argue it is still way to low, but going from zero to some is a huge change) Some OSHA rules mandate employer provide safety equipment.

Literally demonstrating the point in dofm's second paragraph right here...

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

#140

Post by inigyou » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 1:37 PM UTC

jordanb wrote: post #111

armchairhacker wrote: post #41

Wikipedia's side > [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward. This process protects individual choice and ensures that any outcome reflects the collective will of those eligible to participate. > [Jimmy Wales:] One of the problems with the process so far is that it was not secret and we have heard from some staff members that they felt pressu…

Wikipedia has to say that people were being coerced to sign the cards in order to activate the NLRB secret balloting process. The "normal" thing (as expected by the law) is the company recognizes the union once there are enough cards signed. The secret balloting process is a second phase activated only if the company alleges that the cards were signed under duress. Wikipedia is saying they believe that people were co…

Has any company ever not alleged duress?