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

201–210 of 377 posts

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

#201

Post by robin_reala »

ericmay wrote: post #160
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.

> 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 enga…

none of the Mag 7 have unions

They all recognise unions and have unionised employees in countries where unions are the default, with the exception of Tesla.

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

#202

Post by matchbok3 »

nekusar wrote: post #56
matchbok3 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> This is incorrect. Voluntary recognition, which is what this article is about, means that an election is not done. Wikimedia Foundation is asking for an election to ensure everyone actually wants this. Misinformation. Voluntary recognition just means that there isn't a 120 hard fight against union elections to decide if there CAN BE a union. Dark Horse comics just voluntarily acknowledged their union. After that is…

Handwavy. Voluntary recognition is just that, voluntary. Opposing is not inherently evil so I'm not sure what this whole thing is even about.

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

#203

Post by stasomatic »

sassbadger wrote: post #71
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #25

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

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

They have enough employees to need a union and a board? It's a CRUD PHP site that I could run from a VPS (joking ofc, but not that much off).

I've never worked in an industry where unionization was a thing, but my general understanding is that the unions are protectionist dreaming of things that were true before but not today, but they want to keep things as they were. Good luck.

I've benefited from Wikipedia, but I don't romanticize it. Either side of the table can't stop the AI onslaught, they are all out of jobs. Another Wikimedia will rise up from the ashes.

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

#204

Post by alsetmusic »

As a strong supporter of unions, that's the end of my donations. I've probably donated fewer than a dozen times, but definitely more than five or six. I felt reasonably good about it and went on with my day, no hesitation about supporting them. That's done.

Fwiw, unions often have support pages where you can donate or buy merch to support. One of my favorite tshirts advocates for a union that was trying to form at a huge retail chain (looking at you Starbucks Workers United). I did a quick search and this[0] appears to be them.

0. https://www.wikiworkersunited.org

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

#205

Post by sokoloff »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #180
sokoloff wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s a union going to do if (doing a lot of work there) AI significantly reduces the demand for software engineers or tech workers generally? If employers have the upper hand at the moment, the union contract will be more evenly distributed perhaps, but isn’t likely to be “better” overall. That combines to have tech workers, who often have an exceptionalist view of themselves, to conclude that a union would cost th…

>What’s a union going to do if (doing a lot of work there) AI significantly reduces the demand for software engineers or tech workers generally? Aside from general job protection stuff, the general answer would be that they can ensure that some of the productivity gains go to employees rather than employers. Let's say the company has been so much more efficient thanks to AI that they earn an extra 100 million in reve…

In a world where AI heavily disrupts software, a union striking over economics (to get an extra $50M paid out to union members every year) would immediately notice all the replacement tech workers (who were out of work due to AI disruption) streaming in to do the work.

It's really hard for me to imagine the conjunction of significant disruption from AI and effective union bargaining.

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

#206

Post by pessimizer »

llm_nerd wrote: post #64
estearum wrote: post #42

Earlier 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.

What is government giving money to foundations that donate to other foundations that in turn lobby the government but money laundering?

Or worse, government giving favorable regulatory decisions to companies that donate to foundations that in turn lobby the government to do things that it has no public support to do?

These are all actual money laundering, and the salaries (and resumes) of the people who are involved reflect this. This is not "I don't like how they are spending money" or "they are incompetent." They're not hiring white shoe union busting law firms because they're dumb, petty, or short-sighted.

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

#207

Post by Tor3 »

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.

Tech worker here.. well, IT. One example from here (not in the US): The union took care of getting travel hours compensated, and removing the non-paid forced weekend travels, and lots of other stuff which would be impossible for an individual to negotiate. That was a huge issue and took a long time. And lots of other things which individuals have no chance of doing.

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

#208

Post by [deleted] »

ameliaquining wrote: post #189
inigyou wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doctorow approved the generic use. He said he never meant for "enshittification" to only ever refer to the platform lock-in pattern. It refers to any way that things get worse on purpose.

If that's really the case, people should stop using the term as though it has explanatory power.

[deleted]

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

#209

Post by graemep »

hkt wrote: post #117
Turskarama wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some cracks have emerged in that, at least in the UK. Trains, water companies, etc, all used as solid examples of private sector waste and extractiveness.

Most people attribute that entirely to greed or monopoly rather than to it being a result of scale.

IMO its all three.

More importantly politicians and the civil service still believe that the private sector is automatically efficient and that bigger is better. Not a UK only problem either.

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

#210

Post by [deleted] »

unknownfuture wrote: post #132
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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN