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

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

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 377 posts

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

#151

Post by akolbe »

dannyw wrote: post #104
jmusall wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could not find any indication that the purpose of this ever-increasing spending (while alarming) is money laundering in the essay you linked. Can you provide any other source to back up this claim? Money laundering is illegal, while spending money in of itself is definitely not.

I'm generally critical of WMF and think (1) they waste significant amount of resources on mis-managed projects, and (2) are not very honest or transparent in donation communications. But to play devils advocate, a lot of this depends on your views of what WMF should be. Some see WMF as "keep wikimedia sites up and healthy". But the foundation is much broader: > The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower an…

Yes, that is a good example. I used to be cynical about these uses of money until I met a 70-year-old volunteer who regularly attends international cycling championships to take pictures of the cyclists. She is totally devoted to documenting the sport and is not by any stretch of the imagination getting rich doing that or living in luxury. So I've changed my mind: her being able to do that is a good thing for her, for Wikipedia and for the sportspeople involved in these championships. YMMV.

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

#152

Post by tchalla »

Stitch4223 wrote: post #7
jordanb wrote: post #5

SV is a cancer. Even its charities are like this.

“SV”?

I think all these silly little acronyms and abbreviations are the real cancer. I don’t why people feel the need to use it. Poor communication skills in my books.

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

#153

Post by inigyou »

j16sdiz wrote: post #130
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). Where would we be without them? Playing devil's advocate: - Having government functionally like one big union make individual union obsolete. --

But the government isn't very good at it. The government also represents the owners of the companies, and it did the bare minimum to stop the workers from literally murdering the owners and setting their houses on fire, which used to happen regularly before the government guaranteed minimum worker rights.

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

#154

Post by ocd »

I hate unions. I hate lawyers. I hate any consolidation of power in general, so I hate all sides here. And I've never had the "I want a refund" feeling on donating to (what I thought was) a charity, that I now think deeply misrepresented itself when it asked for money.

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

#155

Post by inigyou »

estearum wrote: post #55
inigyou wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called the Iron Law of Bureaucracy

Which as your article points out, is as easy to solve as reading The Mythical Man-Month. That's why it's an Iron Law. It's easy to remove! Also, as you point out, it's actually the same as money laundering, which is an actual crime. So as it goes, every large organization is committing massive scale organized crime (to their own detriment, oddly enough), but they can stop doing so by just reading The Mythical Man-Mon…

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

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

#156

Post by trial3 »

tchalla wrote: post #152
Stitch4223 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“SV”?

I think all these silly little acronyms and abbreviations are the real cancer. I don’t why people feel the need to use it. Poor communication skills in my books.

> I don’t why people

casting the first stone, i see

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

#158

Post by jordanb »

inigyou wrote: post #141
jordanb wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that the company can forgo the election. The company must allege that the cards are improper in order to activate the NLRB secret balloting process.

Has any company ever not alleged it?

Some do, but if you hire a union busting law firm the first thing they have you do is read a statement alleging impropriety with the union cards, in order to initiate the NLRB process.

Companies aren't required to present any evidence other than "we have reason to believe" so it's pretty much a ritual at this point.

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

#160

Post by ericmay »

dofm wrote: post #36
ericmay wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been).

> 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.

I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense. Vaccines are a clear public good. Unions can be but aren’t necessarily. Or should I bring up public unions like police unions?

I don’t have a strong position on unions. I don’t care too much one way or the other. Folks should be able to freely organize, business should be able to freely fire. But I think the OP’s claims need more substance. If you look at “performance” well none of the Mag 7 have unions, all have insanely high pay, and great benefits to boot. Would it be better under a union? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Post reply on HN