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

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

#241

Post by ericmay » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:18 PM UTC

robin_reala wrote: post #201

ericmay wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Not really. At least not in the way that matters.

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

#242

Post by inigyou » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:18 PM UTC

mchusma wrote: post #229

alsetmusic wrote: post #204

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…

Curious why you support unions in general? It’s kind of like saying “I support governments” or “I support companies”.

It's a bit like saying "I support billionaires" but the opposite.

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

#243

Post by xnx » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:19 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #187

xnx wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very very common. Look at the social media comments on any video that relates to fraud, grift, scams, or even a poorly run business. People say any use of money they don't like is "money laundering".

I think this does extend to fraud, grift, scams, and other illegal behavior. I have never seen "money laundering" extended to just "being bad at business."

On posts about companies spending so much money on AI (datacenter buildouts, tokkenmaxxing, etc.) comments wonder why they are doing this and replies say "money laundering", "definitely money laundering", etc. I'll post an example if I come across another one.

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

#244

Post by inigyou » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:19 PM UTC

nearlyepic wrote: post #220

juleiie wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Don’t be afraid of destroying things. Wikipedia isn’t unique or precious really. Surely you’re joking?

I hope they mean the project is precious but the formal organisation that funds the project isn't. Like Firefox and Mozilla.

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

#245

Post by dualvariable » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:19 PM UTC

Ma8ee wrote: post #237

mchusma wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious why you support unions in general? It’s kind of like saying “I support governments” or “I support companies”.

It’s like saying ”I support worker’s rights.” There is in general a huge power imbalance between the employer and the employee, and a union does a bit to rectify that.

Yeah, if we had a country that was run by Unions, rather than Corporations so that abuses of power by those that ran the Unions was a big deal, I'd have a different opinion. But right now, I'm pretty happy to blindly back Unions, because they've been completely gutted.

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

#246

Post by ericmay » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:20 PM UTC

dofm wrote: post #176

ericmay wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense. Then you don't really know history.

I know history better than you do, generally speaking.

You cherry-picked the wrong comment. Vaccines and vaccine adoption has nothing to do with unions nor are they even remotely comparable.

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

#247

Post by dofm » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:22 PM UTC

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…

I have additionally gone down a bit of a rabbit hole on this bit:

> the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws

To a meaningful extent, especially in 19th century Britain, the concept of the general public is the product of labour organisation, not the source of it.

It's a pretty new concept — the idea that the public have any single collective solidarity or consensus, can be consulted, have the ability to read newspapers etc.

A non-trivial part of that comes from the empowerment of labour, from the creation of commercial schools and universal education (which emerges from the social contract that grew as a result of organised labour interacting with the state etc.

Unions were powerful in the education of adults, they created unified leisure time, they furthered the idea of trade schools, they created a path to politics for the underclass, etc.; I don't think there would have been a general public without labour organisation. Just a rarified wealthy upper class.

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

#248

Post by psunavy03 » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:22 PM UTC

sassbadger wrote: post #98

decimalenough wrote: post #90

I'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.

> However, it eventually transpired that the Foundation has chosen to be represented by the law firm Littler Mendelson, which has an equally strong reputation for union busting.

Yeah, Littler is one of THE union-busting, anti-worker law firms out there. Their website specifically notes that they specialize in labor law from only the side of representing management.

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

#249

Post by juleiie » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:22 PM UTC

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #227

nearlyepic wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don’t be afraid of destroying things. Wikipedia isn’t unique or precious really. Surely you’re joking?

Before LLMs, Wikipedia was the greatest source of misinformation in all of human history. It is at best good for satiating an idle curiosity with some plausible-sounding fun facts to amuse oneself with without care for whether they're really true or not, but so many people rely on it for so much more, and I have little doubt it causes more harm than good. Real encyclopedias with professional standards exist.

[flagged]

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

#250

Post by inigyou » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:22 PM UTC

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…

Labor laws came about because before there were labor laws, the employees would form an angry mob to burn down the boss's house and shoot his cat, and the boss would flee before he was next.

This is the same reason the government protects unions.