Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

wikiworkersunited.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 180 posts

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

#171

Post by next_xibalba »

Grombobulous wrote: post #89
NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience is that unions very often make things stupider and less efficient. I've been forced to give to two of them that were basically just political cosplay by children (well really the $ was taken without consent before it was even in my hands, so it was stolen) And I've had the displeasure of working in a factory environment that was unionized. Perhaps there was a time when this made sense, but I think those…

I would submit the idea that a lot of union reforms that have been made to laws in the US have been specifically designed to make unions less attractive and less incentivized toward positive outcomes.

Which laws? And why?

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

#172

Post by PorciiVorbesc »

20after4 wrote: post #162
PorciiVorbesc wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Anyone can be a Wikipedia editor, assuming you haven't done something egregious and gotten a lifetime ban. Firstly, not all articles are open to editing by gen-pop. See: Extended confirmed protection on many. Secondly, some pages that are hot on the political side can then become subject to broader Wikipedia contentious topics / discretionary sanctions rules, so even eligible editors who qualified for extended confi…

>OK, but why are you bringing this up? Mostly as disclosure that I worked there. Not trying to make a point about anything at all. Just offering my observations as a former employee.

Would wikipedia/WMF protect its editors even if they were known to be supporters of Trump and ICE?

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

#173

Post by PorciiVorbesc »

OneDeuxTriSeiGo wrote: post #150
PorciiVorbesc wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FANG juniors make 350k+/year?

After factoring in employer taxes, employer side benefits costs, etc yeah that wouldn't surprise me.

Making = what employees earn gross, not the extra burdens on the employer that the government takes

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

#174

Post by PorciiVorbesc »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #133
PorciiVorbesc wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It looks like a healthy extended family where resources are shared towards a common goal of health and liberty. In the Europe, like several rich western countries, we mostly replaced the extended family with the government welfare state, for better but mostly for worse. So current young workers are contributing to a failing state ponzi pension system that will leave them in poverty by the time they retire in several…

Doesn’t sound very much like a healthy family to me

WDYM?

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

#175

Post by PorciiVorbesc »

rexpop wrote: post #158
PorciiVorbesc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain why do they need a union when they work for a non-profit? Aren't they mostly volunteers? From my experience in my youth volunteering at animal shelters and environmental protection groups, you never volunteer for a non-profit for the money or the job stability, but you do it for the mission and the satisfaction of being the change you want to be in the world, even if that means living off ramen an…

> work for a non-profit? Aren't they mostly volunteers? No. Common misconception. It's a business and career like any other. > experience in my youth volunteering at animal shelters and environmental protection groups Just not applicable, here.

>It's a business and career like any other.

Then why should we treat Wikipedia any differently than we treat Meta, OpenAI, Google, Apple etc? When they're just in the business of making money and the "mission" can always just be another facade similar to OpenAI?

>Just not applicable, here.

Explain please.

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

#176

Post by Grombobulous »

next_xibalba wrote: post #171
Grombobulous wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would submit the idea that a lot of union reforms that have been made to laws in the US have been specifically designed to make unions less attractive and less incentivized toward positive outcomes.

Which laws? And why?

Here's a big paper on the subject: https://files.epi.org/pdf/215908.pdf

I'm not sure it touches on the exact concept I said, though. I've read about it somewhere else that I can't find right now.

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

#177

Post by spopejoy »

iamnothere wrote: post #167
spopejoy wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most recent examples are the unionized London Google workers attempting to force the company to terminate its military AI contracts and giving researchers right of refusal on individual projects. Something similar happened at Microsoft, it was not a union action but it was organized. Public service unions (teachers, police, corrections) are of course highly political and often get involved in things way beyond…

You’re presenting your theory of union power as if it’s the only allowable theory. I support a different view. Workers do not own the company and should not directly steer it, although they can influence it and the union should of course ensure that they are treated fairly. The point of a private company is that it is owned and steered by the private owners, while a public company is owned and steered (through the bo…

I missed the part on your previous reply about having a union rep on the board. This is foreign to me as a US citizen so perhaps my vision is blinkered by the horrible state and history of labor relations here.

In a US context, with none of these kinds of arrangements in force, I do not accept arguments against much anything restricting worker's rights to organize here as there is so little alternative and even after organizing, true collective bargaining can be thwarted almost indefinitely (look at Amazon warehouse union efforts for examples of post-formation stonewalling).

In the German case or wherever there is a seat at the table for unions, a discussion can indeed be had. Here, I have zero sympathy for management which holds all the cards most of the time. Wikipedia in particular engaged a notorious anti-labor lawfirm to help their noble effort so I do not trust them in any way.

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

#178

Post by hunterpayne »

bluegatty wrote: post #169
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yours is the naïve view of someone who has never looked at how the sausage is made. There are hundreds of billions each year flowing through NGOs. Where do you think this money comes from. Hint: its not your friendly grandma.

You should take some time to learn what NGO's are. America Medial Association, AARP (retired people) are NGOs, they advocate for their causes, that's perfectly reasonable and normal. They are not 'for profit' obviously, and they're not strictly charities. People can group together and organize as they please. Donations to NGOs are not tax deductible.

1) Its spelled Medical

2) We have different regulations for different types of institutions

3) NGOs specifically exist to get around those regulations

4) A lobbying group (AARP) should have specific rules around how it can function. Lumping them with a professional standards organization makes it impossible to have reasonable anti-corruption laws. That's why NGOs exist, to make it impossible to enforce corruption laws. There is literally no other reason for it to exist as a category. We already have categories for lobbying groups and professional groups and charities.

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

#179

Post by Lutger »

aliasxneo wrote: post #96
Arubis wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, certainly: the ability to say “no” to abusive labor conditions without risk of irreversibly losing any source of income while living in a society that treats lack of income as deserving of whatever pains and suffering come with it. The word “any” is doing a lot of work here—I’m implying a denylist or “social credit score” or other way of persisting punishment against an individual beyond mere job loss. You’re ri…

> living in a society that treats lack of income as deserving of whatever pains and suffering What does the opposite society look like? Universal income?

Richard Rorty describes liberalism as the idea that cruelty is the worst thing that exists. Cruelty, of course, has just as many forms as suffering.

Universal income protects only basic needs and it does so in part. Even if you have income, you need to have housing, clean water, food that isn't poisened and some form of healthy environment to live a good life: income doesn't guarantee it.

On the other end of the income spectrum is the unlimited amassing of wealth. After some point, wealth turns into power. For example, Musk is able to buy twitter influencing public opinion, and Starlink can make or break the battlefield.

If we are talking only about income, I think we would need both a minimum (universal) income and a maximum (a cap on wealth). If we do not, then we will eventually lose democracy.

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

#180

Post by iamnothere »

spopejoy wrote: post #177
iamnothere wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re presenting your theory of union power as if it’s the only allowable theory. I support a different view. Workers do not own the company and should not directly steer it, although they can influence it and the union should of course ensure that they are treated fairly. The point of a private company is that it is owned and steered by the private owners, while a public company is owned and steered (through the bo…

I missed the part on your previous reply about having a union rep on the board. This is foreign to me as a US citizen so perhaps my vision is blinkered by the horrible state and history of labor relations here. In a US context, with none of these kinds of arrangements in force, I do not accept arguments against much anything restricting worker's rights to organize here as there is so little alternative and even after…

While I understand the difficulty, companies pushing back against and even actively disrupting organizing (illegally) doesn’t imply that corporate governance structure should change post-union. (Except for some kind of legally mandated representation like the German solution, and policy changes to accommodate the union.) A public company is still a public company, etc.

I do think more union rights need to be enshrined in law, and the only way to get there may be mass protest like a general strike, but it would need to be politically well-timed. Unions in the US are anemic by design.

Post reply on HN