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

121–130 of 379 posts

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

#121

Post by ymolodtsov »

inigyou wrote: post #70
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #25

Remember that this is what your money funds when you donate to it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... No wonder they've upped the guilt tripping this year. Wikipedia has enough money right now to run Wikipedia forever but it keeps wasting it on useless stuff and feeling like it needs more. The WMF cannot fathom how to operate without continuous growing wastes of money, and without donations, Wikipedia would die within two years. We need to starve the bea…

Seems it'd be far more reasonable to direct the excess funds into an endowment of sorts instead of spending it on other areas.

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

#122

Post by dgellow »

inigyou wrote: post #84
jordanb wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When strikes are legal is really complicated and depends on industry. The thing to understand is that labor law in the US was created to "reduce labor strife." Unions existed before they were recognized as legal. What labor law tries to do is make an orderly process with the goal is no strikes and a mutually agreed-on contract. The company recognizing the union is the first step towards a contract. Basically it's say…

This reminds me of the German approach to street marches. They are allowed, must be registered with the police, and the police will ensure there are several policemen around for each protestor just in case any of them "try anything". The police form a box around the protest, restricting it from going anywhere not approved and restricting people from seeing the signs; they also blare their sirens so that the chants ca…

As someone living in Germany, what you're saying is not true. It is correct that protests have to be registered, that's the case for pretty much all developed countries. It is also correct that the organizers are responsible to cover costs. But the police doesn't restrict people from seeing signs, doesn't blare their sirens. They mostly stay on the side while handling the traffic, and intervene if the protest becomes chaotic. In the vast majority of protests they do literally nothing other than being present.

Compared to the US where multiple protesters have been killed on video by ICE this year Germany is a dream of free speech

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

#123

Post by cool_dude85 »

nekusar wrote: post #65
Macha wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the very minimum, the company acknowledges the union and negotiates with the union for working conditions for union members. It’s quite common that that also extends to negotiation on salary bands, and it’s also quite common the company then applies the same salary bands to non union employees also, rather than the norm in tech of individual negotiation. Many people think they’re in the group that is negotiating o…

> At the very minimum, the company acknowledges the union and negotiates with the union for working conditions for union members. By federal law, if a company has a union, the union must represent ALL non-management workers, even those who do not pay dues. This is obviously fucked up. But this has been union law at the NLRB for a long time. The fair response: a union should only legally be responsible for representin…

>By federal law, if a company has a union, the union must represent ALL non-management workers, even those who do not pay dues.

This is not true. There can be non-union job classes even if the employer has some unionized employees. Even in different geographic areas you can have one location have class X union and another non-union (eg Starbucks).

What you cannot do, is have a unionized location with union Software Engineer I and non-union Software Engineer I. Sometimes employers try to skirt this and have non-union jobs that are too close to union jobs, and then it's lawsuit time.

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

#124

Post by ymolodtsov »

I understand why factory workers or store clerks might want a union but I'd never understand why tech workers should.

I guess except the game developers but the most realistic threat vector for them is the studio shutting down, so a union wouldn't really help.

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

#125

Post by j16sdiz »

dofm wrote: post #36
ericmay wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of research shows that generally places where unions exist have better work conditions and perform better over the long term. Do you have any non-partisan sources for this? Genuinely curious. When you say perform better what do you mean specifically? And does better work conditions include better pay or just on-site conditions or something similar?

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.

We have gone a long way since industrial revolution.

e.g.

Child labor now outlawed.

There is a minimum wage. (You can argue it is still way to low, but going from zero to some is a huge change)

Some OSHA rules mandate employer provide safety equipment.

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

#126

Post by beowulfey »

jordanb wrote: post #101
estearum wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting! Wasn't aware of this. Given that they know the company may invoke NLRB's process and require a second anonymous ballot anyway, can organizers not start with an anonymous one?

No. There's basically a chicken and egg problem. It is not illegal to discuss unions in the workplace or to pledge support for a union. But the "union" has no standing to do anything other than talk to people. So to get a union you first need people to talk to their colleagues, and if the people they're talking to seem agreeable, get them to sign a card saying that they would like to be in a union. Once they have eno…

We just went through institution of a union at my employer for one type of employee. The organizers did exactly this, and as an observer/affected party it was a little coercive. But you know it has to be, because people always prefer the status quo. It takes a lot of work to unionize and it ultimately never felt forced because we all wanted it. But man, the pressure to sign and put your name down was high, and BECAUSE there were no protections, definitely unnerving.

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

#127

Post by inigyou »

ymolodtsov wrote: post #124

I understand why factory workers or store clerks might want a union but I'd never understand why tech workers should. I guess except the game developers but the most realistic threat vector for them is the studio shutting down, so a union wouldn't really help.

For exactly the same reason as factory workers or store clerks: to even out the power imbalance against the owners.

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

#128

Post by inigyou »

ymolodtsov wrote: post #121
inigyou wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... No wonder they've upped the guilt tripping this year. Wikipedia has enough money right now to run Wikipedia forever but it keeps wasting it on useless stuff and feeling like it needs more. The WMF cannot fathom how to operate without continuous growing wastes of money, and without donations, Wikipedia would die within two years. We need to starve the bea…

Seems it'd be far more reasonable to direct the excess funds into an endowment of sorts instead of spending it on other areas.

If they did that they'd already have a big enough endowment to fund all of Wikimedia for life.

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

#129

Post by inigyou »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #115
inigyou wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C... No wonder they've upped the guilt tripping this year. Wikipedia has enough money right now to run Wikipedia forever but it keeps wasting it on useless stuff and feeling like it needs more. The WMF cannot fathom how to operate without continuous growing wastes of money, and without donations, Wikipedia would die within two years. We need to starve the bea…

Feels like where Mozilla went

Great analogy.

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

#130

Post by j16sdiz »

inigyou wrote: post #74
TheTaytay wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think working conditions have changed enough since then to make a request for non-biased studies a reasonable one. Most debates about unions seem to boil down to “I just know” or anecdotes. I would expect unions to fund research to show that working conditions are better in union shops, but not include the fact that some unionized shops can’t compete in a market with non union shops and might go out of business. (B…

Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). Where would we be without them? Smart unions are supposed to take business conditions into account. If the business is losing money, the union would recognize that and pull back a bit, because it needs to be a symbiotic relationship to last, not a parasitic one. However, businesses are rarely willing to share hon…

> Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). Where would we be without them?

Playing devil's advocate:

- Having government functionally like one big union make individual union obsolete.

--

Post reply on HN