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

261–270 of 377 posts

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

#261

Post by Pay08 »

whatsupdog wrote: post #253
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…

I stopped supporting a long time ago when one the top contributors was removed because he had a tiff with a woman who was dating one of the executives. I don't remember the exact details. But that showed me what the organization really prioritized.

I do find it interesting how pretty much none of Wikipedia's organisational controversies and institutional deterioration (a lot of which have been going on for ~20 years) really made it out to the general public.

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

#262

Post by 8note »

sokoloff wrote: post #145
unknownfuture wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

longshoremens' unions made sure that the dock workers didnt lose jobs through the change over to containers.

handling a reduction in work is one of the things a union is for

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

#263

Post by rho_soul_kg_m3 »

gruez wrote: post #236
jasonvorhe wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So donating to Wikipedia actually funds commercial events? wtf.

Of all the controversial stuff that WMF does, "funding photographers to take royalty free photos for use on wikipedia" seems fairly low down the list.

What's at the top of the list?

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

#264

Post by salawat »

sokoloff wrote: post #145
unknownfuture wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

If employers have the upper hand, you're fucked anyway. Hire 10% to keep the other 90% down. A union gets you solidarity so no one is having to weather the storm alone.

You need to think long and hard about the fact capital reflexively does everything possible to resist or bust unions when these are the same people trying to pound into you that you're supposed to give more for the bottom line, and raises can't do anything but keep up with inflation this year. If they go for the law firm, the money is absolutely there, they just don't want to spend it on you. Heaven forbid.

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

#265

Post by cogman10 »

matchbok3 wrote: post #223
cogman10 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the union's demands. [1] Which of them do you find particularly unreasonable? [1] https://wikiworkersunited.org/focus-areas/

> Hold management accountable to promises made to staff This is just silly. Management are the most accountable people in any organization. This makes no sense.

They are held accountable, but are they held accountable to the staff? If so, how-so?

In my experience, management rarely has any sort of reverse checks in place. The closest is employee manager feedback. Which this demand

> Guarantee ability to safely express dissent

Makes me think that staff has been trained not to share true feelings on such feedback.

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

#266

Post by Pay08 »

derektank wrote: post #257
inigyou wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

One can support both billionaires and unions. Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the USA while roughly 2/3rds of their workforce is unionized

Not to mention the heaps of economic research showing that there are quite a lot of benefits to the existence of billionaires.

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

#267

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

matchbok3 wrote: post #225
inigyou wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given your other, completely insane comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49143931 I am inclined to assume that you are paid to oppose unions online. Also your recent comment history consists entirely of angry contrarianism.

Insane? Please stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. Disagreement is not insane. Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is some paid shill. Like... really? Hilarious. Grow up.

> Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is some paid shill.

Whether it's true or not, making dubious arguments from a relatively new online account is actually indistinguishable from trolling. Your replies are not helping the matter.

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

#269

Post by inigyou »

Pay08 wrote: post #266
derektank wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can support both billionaires and unions. Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the USA while roughly 2/3rds of their workforce is unionized

Not to mention the heaps of economic research showing that there are quite a lot of benefits to the existence of billionaires.

Then quadrillionaires must be even better, right? Why don't we print ten quadrillion dollars and distribute them to ten people?

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

#270

Post by inigyou »

alt227 wrote: post #260
inigyou wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could tell us which programs.

They could, but if their donation ads said for example 'please help us to take more photos of live events' instead of 'we need your help to keep wikipedia alive' then they would not get half the donations they do currently, which is the point.

I agree, that you can lie to people to make more money. That's called fraud.
Post reply on HN