Live data from Hacker News

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

en.wikipedia.org

321–330 of 377 posts

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

#321
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's up with the continually revolving CTO chair? (under Executive)

Look at their salaries. Most are earning significantly less than what they would have earned in the for-profit sector for the same role in a significantly more stressful job. Compensation only started catching up in 2021-22 and even then is roughly comparable to what mid-career ICs now earn in the Bay, NYC, and Seattle.

Salary aside, I'd still have assumed Wikimedia would be able to find a CTO who wouldn't jump ship the next year.

Either they're really bad at picking, or the job is really bad.

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

#322
post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The comparison is the unambiguous gains for society union labour organisation achieved through industrial history, which was a clear public good, and what is lost if there are no longer unions to defend those gains. It's a loose comparison. I think vaccines are a much more clear public good. > Stuff can go backwards and currently in the USA absolutely is going backwards, at a federal, state and commercial level. Un…

It's a logical mistake to think anyone cosies up to a politician because of what they have already done to benefit them. It's much more about what they could be persuaded to do or not do, or worse, might do if they don't reach out. In short the picture there is not what you suggest. Unions have notable concerns about the current administration, and about trends in state governments which are going backwards. https://…

It doesn't matter what the media publishes, it matters what blue-collar former democrats vote and they vote Trump. You are claiming that unions are what push the country forward, you claim the current state is the country is regressing, and yet union members voted for Trump. And they did so despite Trump's anti-worker record.

Your view doesn't match reality.

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

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't match what I saw.

Do you often go to protests in Germany? Or do you mean something you saw online?

I saw a German street protest in real life

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

#324
post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at their salaries. Most are earning significantly less than what they would have earned in the for-profit sector for the same role in a significantly more stressful job. Compensation only started catching up in 2021-22 and even then is roughly comparable to what mid-career ICs now earn in the Bay, NYC, and Seattle.

Salary aside, I'd still have assumed Wikimedia would be able to find a CTO who wouldn't jump ship the next year. Either they're really bad at picking, or the job is really bad.

> Either they're really bad at picking, or the job is really bad

Def the latter in the sense that it is a very high stress job with weak compensation and high risk of being targeted.

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

#325
post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a logical mistake to think anyone cosies up to a politician because of what they have already done to benefit them. It's much more about what they could be persuaded to do or not do, or worse, might do if they don't reach out. In short the picture there is not what you suggest. Unions have notable concerns about the current administration, and about trends in state governments which are going backwards. https://…

It doesn't matter what the media publishes, it matters what blue-collar former democrats vote and they vote Trump. You are claiming that unions are what push the country forward, you claim the current state is the country is regressing, and yet union members voted for Trump. And they did so despite Trump's anti-worker record. Your view doesn't match reality.

> You are claiming that unions are what push the country forward

Again, no, you are rather mischaracterising what I said. I have certainly argued that unions did in the past push the USA forward in terms of labour rights and worker protections — you only have to read about the history of the AFL-CIO to know that this is true. You have most of your few workers rights because of collective action (and as a country you have lost job security you could have had by falling for Reaganite cartooned claptrap about unions).

But at this point it is not about forward progress, particularly; workers need unions to push back against regressions more than anything else. Those regressions are happening. That is what I have said.

> you claim the current state is the country is regressing

You think it is not?

> Your view doesn't match reality.

Or… Trump misled and lied to underinformed voters? Again? Pretty sure I could find you links from 2024 where he promised not to get the USA into wars and promised to keep prices down. But what's the point?

Also some of those links I shared were union pages, and one of them is a White House document literally announcing the elimination of collective bargaining power for federal workers, so, no, it is not just the media.

Here's another:

https://mnaflcio.org/news/trump-champion-workers-his-anti-un...

My view, I think, matches the reality of 2026 pretty well. You have an anti-union government which is committed to rolling back union power and has already done so. I can't change how blue-collar voters acted against their own interests when tempted with populist baubles (which is a time-honoured tradition), but their dubious vote doesn't particularly validate your argument or invalidate mine, does it?

You can think what you like, though.

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

#326
post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What truly grinds my gears about Wikipedia isn't the amount of false information but the amount of uncorroborated info. The amount of times I've read an article that made large, sweeping claims about something and then not have any citations, often not even a "citation needed" box should be frankly unacceptable.

Come help! Here's the August 2026 unreferenced articles backlog drive, with instructions and a leaderboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Unrefere...

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

#327

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.

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…

You might find it interesting to read some of the 2026-2027 infrastructure OKRs: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...

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

#328
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

One of WMF's more controversial expenditures was its $4.5 million "Knowledge Equity Fund", a grant program that tries to fight racial inequity. The recipients don't have to participate in Wikipedia or anything.

They may be noble causes, but it's not how many Wikipedia donors expected their funds to be used, after seeing the donation banners begging for funds to keep Wikipedia running.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund

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

#329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's at the top of the list?

One of WMF's more controversial expenditures was its $4.5 million "Knowledge Equity Fund", a grant program that tries to fight racial inequity. The recipients don't have to participate in Wikipedia or anything. They may be noble causes, but it's not how many Wikipedia donors expected their funds to be used, after seeing the donation banners begging for funds to keep Wikipedia running. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/…

As stupid as that was, they at least put a stop to it. It hasn't been a thing for several years now.

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

#330

Wikipedia's side > [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward. This process protects individual choice and ensures that any outcome reflects the collective will of those eligible to participate. > [Jimmy Wales:] One of the problems with the process so far is that it was not secret and we have heard from some staff members that they felt pressu…

> One of the problems with the process so far is that it was not secret

As far as i can tell, this is a straight up lie. Union organizers might know, but legally they are required to keep who signs a union card secret.

If voluntary recognition happened, as far as i understand, part of the process would be for a neutral third party to verify the signed statements. So if someone was pressured, the verification person would call them up and ask if they really meant to sign, and they could just say no. [Ianal, this is just what the pro union people are saying on wikipedia]

Post reply on HN