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

191–200 of 378 posts

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

#191

Post by mahkeiro »

neilk wrote: post #116
inigyou wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... No wonder they've upped the guilt tripping this year. Wikipedia has enough money right now to run Wikipedia forever but it keeps wasting it on useless stuff and feeling like it needs more. The WMF cannot fathom how to operate without continuous growing wastes of money, and without donations, Wikipedia would die within two years. We need to starve the bea…

I don’t know if you’re joking or not but of course Wales doesn’t profit directly from this. And, as a non-profit, compensation of executives is public knowledge. I believe Board members get zero compensation other than reimbursement for travel expenses. (Jimmy Wales did cash in on his reputation with some ads for luxury watches and idk what else he does for $). Salaries at the WMF have absolutely exploded, though the…

What would justify Silicon Valley salary for an organization that can be based anywhere in the world? They are not doing advanced R&D, or product dev that would justify big numbers or a very specific set of skills.

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

#192

Post by Jumpstylish »

shevy-java wrote: post #148
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #25

Remember that this is what your money funds when you donate to it...

Some years ago, I think a french contributor pointed that out, aka asking why the wikimedia foundation wants so much money. Now the picture is getting more clear - denying a union is clearly big brother billionaire thinking, e. g. lowering cost while maximizing abuse of workers/employees.

I would be very surprised is WMF employee conditions would meet anyone’s definition of abuse. If anything, these sound like patronage jobs.

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

#194

Post by joaquieneCnix »

jordanb wrote: post #83
joaquieneCnix wrote: post #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 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).

Thanks for the reminder, JB.

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

#196

Post by dofm »

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'd never understand why tech workers should.

You may unfortunately understand this soon, if the products of the tech industry do what they promise to do. But it will be too late.

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

#197

Post by dofm »

ck2 wrote: post #75

I have never understood why it's okay and not wildly illegal for anyone to interfere with unions at any level in the USA Then again we still don't have universal healthcare and now even more million have lost health insurance due to cost so I guess it's stupid all the way down People just keep voting against themselves. might be billionaires someday so gotta protect dubious "rights" of the ultra-wealthy just in case

> I have never understood why it's okay and not wildly illegal for anyone to interfere with unions at any level in the USA

The entire conversation around unions in the USA is a cartoon, basically.

But if people don't know what rights they have lost, or are convinced by studies that talk mostly about growth or the freedom of capital rather than the rights of people, or accept the framing of things like crudely compare the GDP of the poorest US state with EU states or the UK and say, "look, they are worse off than us", they will never understand the basic, useful functions of ordinary, professionalised unions.

I am a freelancer so I don't have access to one, really, but the framing I like best about unions is: imagine what it would be like if the HR department was ever actually on your side. That is what a union can do.

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

#198

Post by juleiie »

TSiege wrote: post #118
sassbadger wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have donated to them for many years and will stop now. I will not support any kind of union busting.

Be sure to tell them why you stopped. I’ll be doing the same. Hopefully this pressures them to give up on this

You guys don’t get it apparently but once the thing became corrupted, got a whiff of power and money, there is no chance they are going to be persuaded into anything long term. They may appear to do so short term to appease but money corrupts permanently.

Don’t be afraid of destroying things. Wikipedia isn’t unique or precious really. Some extended pressure would really rejuvenate the idea of such site in one way or another.

It is doubtful if anyone is in power to pressure them at this point though. Wmf grown like a tumour on the back of the site.

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

#200

Post by dofm »

inigyou wrote: post #74
TheTaytay wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think working conditions have changed enough since then to make a request for non-biased studies a reasonable one. Most debates about unions seem to boil down to “I just know” or anecdotes. I would expect unions to fund research to show that working conditions are better in union shops, but not include the fact that some unionized shops can’t compete in a market with non union shops and might go out of business. (B…

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…

> Where would we be without them?

Where will you be without them, you mean. The current trajectory of the US government is the opposite of strengthening the rights of labour.

Post reply on HN