Live data from Hacker News

Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

wikiworkersunited.org

31–40 of 162 posts

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#31
post #25

Everyone wants a piece of the wikipedia gravy train. In 2010: Wikimedia Foundation annual expenses were about $20m In 2025: Wikimedia Foundation annual expenses are about $200m The story of Wikipedia of the last 10 years especially is endlessly higher spending for a very stable number of monthly users (1.5b or so). You can make the case that 80% of this spend is not necessary to what the average users donating to Wik…

Exactly. The WMF spending growth is completely decoupled from its effect on Wikipedia. This only works because the donations pop-up makes people think they are donating to Wikipedia, not to a foundation which mostly does totally unrelated stuff. There is no feedback loop which would limit this spending toward the core aspects of Wikipedia.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#32
post #6

Is Wikipedia a bad place to work or something? I'd imagine it must be pretty relaxed/cushy, albeit probably at the lower end of market comp for software jobs in particular. Does the union stipulate the workers cannot be replaced with AI?

Right? If your logo[1] is going to be a fist raised in defiance you'd better at least have something you're trying to fight about. And if you're going to brag about succeeding in your vote at least give an idea about WHY you want a union in the first place. There are unionization attempts I understand like Amazon warehouse workers and unionization attempts that I don't like the Minneapolis small coffee chain workers…

> Right? If your logo[1] is going to be a fist raised in defiance you'd better at least have something you're trying to fight about. And if you're going to brag about succeeding in your vote at least give an idea about WHY you want a union in the first place.

The raised fist is union iconography. It is commonplace among all kinds of trade union, union, and other labor orgs.

And this is one of the things that's really annoying about trying to explain the appeal of unionising. You don't need to have a bad workplace first to have a union.

You can have a good workplace and it's better if you do. The point of the union is to codify structures that empower workers to keep their workplace good and drag it back to being good if problems arise.

This is a solidarity union and therefore the leadership are not paid. They are exist to provide a counterbalance against the management chain and provide a safe avenue for workers to communicate concerns and have them addressed. Notably one where they are on the side of the worker and not the side of the company (HR has its use but it's also often going to side with the company).

The wikimedia union's purpose according to https://wikiworkersunited.org/focus-areas/:

Our international union will officially empower the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) workers to work together with WMF management to address long-standing concerns, including:

- Encouraging transparency and accountability on various issues from WMF leadership toward both the WMF staff and the Wikimedia movement communities

- Ensuring staff are heard and have effective ways to provide input on policy changes or annual planning (ideally while in deliberation and not as post-factum pushback)

- Prevent questionable or unclear hiring, firing, promotion and other HR practices

- Guarantee ability to safely express dissent

- Advocate for mental health support for staff

- Advocate for pay and benefits equity that makes sense to the staff

- Hold management accountable to promises made to staff

Many of the concerns above have been raised by staff repeatedly over several years. Through unionizing, WMF workers can take proactive steps to address them in collaboration with management.

-----

Those are reasonable complaints and a union makes sense to provide a continuous mechanism towards improving on those concerns.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#33
post #6

Is Wikipedia a bad place to work or something? I'd imagine it must be pretty relaxed/cushy, albeit probably at the lower end of market comp for software jobs in particular. Does the union stipulate the workers cannot be replaced with AI?

Right? If your logo[1] is going to be a fist raised in defiance you'd better at least have something you're trying to fight about. And if you're going to brag about succeeding in your vote at least give an idea about WHY you want a union in the first place. There are unionization attempts I understand like Amazon warehouse workers and unionization attempts that I don't like the Minneapolis small coffee chain workers…

I think that this fundamentally comes from thinking that unions are only there for the worst possible jobs in the worst conditions, or where outright abuse occurs. And also from the (imo incorrect) idea that you should have those bad conditions before organizing.

Unions even the balance of power between the executives and labour at an organization. Even if WMF conditions are perfect and there's never any abuse of power (which seems unlikely) -- you should want a union in place _before_ an org decides to do layoffs, or force a practice on its workers that they don't want.

I worked at a tech company a few years ago and the standard anti-union cliche from execs was "we already treat you well" but then about 20 months later they laid off 2000 people, including folks on parental leave. A bit late to try and organize a union at that point.

(edit: typo fix)

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#34
post #27
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is divide-and-conquer rhetoric from someone who doesn’t want labour power. Workers would be much better off if we all stood together no matter how much we were paid or what our conditions were. Edit: oh I see, your bio brags that you’re a scab, that explains it

Honestly increasing the number of unions in otherwise un-unionized industries is a win for us all. The same goes for Starbucks.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#35
post #27
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is divide-and-conquer rhetoric from someone who doesn’t want labour power. Workers would be much better off if we all stood together no matter how much we were paid or what our conditions were. Edit: oh I see, your bio brags that you’re a scab, that explains it

Exactly. Unions don't have to exist solely because the company is evil and refusing to give workers a fair shake.

Unions are a compromise and frankly exist to provide a democratic path and open dialogue towards resolving issues before the workers are sufficiently pissed off that the only option left is a full on strike.

Some unions start with a strike but it's by no means a requirement.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#36
post #25

Everyone wants a piece of the wikipedia gravy train. In 2010: Wikimedia Foundation annual expenses were about $20m In 2025: Wikimedia Foundation annual expenses are about $200m The story of Wikipedia of the last 10 years especially is endlessly higher spending for a very stable number of monthly users (1.5b or so). You can make the case that 80% of this spend is not necessary to what the average users donating to Wik…

This is 95% of all NGOs and their ilk.

Related:

"We now have evidence of how at least $7.7 billion for homelessness was spent on salaries. They created a jobs program that grows at the expense of the actual homeless who need help instead of helping the homeless."

https://x.com/Twolfrecovery/status/2095661343215141026

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#37

Lots of people asking "Why?". They say so right on their site: There are big changes happening in the technology industry and they are acting pro-actively to ensure the workers have a strong collective voice in the ways the foundation chooses to respond to those changes. "The Wikimedia Foundation and the broader technology and nonprofit sectors are navigating a period of significant change. From rapid advances in art…

Also, there are allegations of adversarial management behavior. I can't find the link now, but some background:

https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-workers-vote-on-whethe...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49143414

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikitech-l@lists...

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#39

[flagged]

H-1B is a problem for the immigrants labor rights not the other employees. Unionized workplaces already have strong protection against replacing workers with non union labor, including H-1B and contractors. Unless it's in a right to work state but WMF is CA based.

I agree that the system needs to go, replaced by a cheaper non employer bound visa that becomes a green card after a couple years of paying taxes. But that's not what most H-1B opponents want.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#40
post #25

Everyone wants a piece of the wikipedia gravy train. In 2010: Wikimedia Foundation annual expenses were about $20m In 2025: Wikimedia Foundation annual expenses are about $200m The story of Wikipedia of the last 10 years especially is endlessly higher spending for a very stable number of monthly users (1.5b or so). You can make the case that 80% of this spend is not necessary to what the average users donating to Wik…

This is 95% of all NGOs and their ilk. Related: "We now have evidence of how at least $7.7 billion for homelessness was spent on salaries. They created a jobs program that grows at the expense of the actual homeless who need help instead of helping the homeless." https://x.com/Twolfrecovery/status/2095661343215141026

Levels of waste in NGOs are a fully fair subject for debate but without context an arbitrary number is only misleading and therefore sadly cynical.

Also - you have no evidence for '95% of NGO's and their ilk'.

This is not Twitter.

Post reply on HN