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

161–169 of 169 posts

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

#161

Post by spopejoy »

iamnothere wrote: post #147
spopejoy wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange that workers organizing to better their working conditions would raise such concerns, vs. say, the management changing c suite roles with zero oversight. Bosses know best?

One can easily be concerned with both. Unions are a great idea, but some modern unions have been corrupted, focusing less on worker solidarity and improving conditions/pay and more on unrelated “omnicause” topics that are destructive to both the workers and the company. Emphasis on some , which is why I said it may be fine. It’s really hard to tell in advance. Executives have always been a potential source of problem…

Hmm, maybe you can enlighten us with some examples of "corrupted unions" focusing on harmful product changes to some kind of demonstrable extent?

The issue of leadership corruption in unions is well-known and definitely does _not_ lead to the kind of PC tyranny you're worried about here.

To be clear, what I'm objecting to is the "harrrumph I'll support worker's unions IFF they hew exactly to my non-working-condition-oriented values and demands." How about just supporting the workers?

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

#162

Post by 20after4 »

PorciiVorbesc wrote: post #131
20after4 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only Wikipedia's editors can edit them Anyone can be a Wikipedia editor, assuming you haven't done something egregious and gotten a lifetime ban. It takes no time at all to set up an editor account and you don't even have to divulge your real identity to do so. The Wikimedia Foundation appears to go to great lengths to defend their editors and has gone to court to defend their editors' rights to pseudo-anonymity. N…

>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.

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

#163

Post by iamnothere »

spopejoy wrote: post #161
iamnothere wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can easily be concerned with both. Unions are a great idea, but some modern unions have been corrupted, focusing less on worker solidarity and improving conditions/pay and more on unrelated “omnicause” topics that are destructive to both the workers and the company. Emphasis on some , which is why I said it may be fine. It’s really hard to tell in advance. Executives have always been a potential source of problem…

Hmm, maybe you can enlighten us with some examples of "corrupted unions" focusing on harmful product changes to some kind of demonstrable extent? The issue of leadership corruption in unions is well-known and definitely does _not_ lead to the kind of PC tyranny you're worried about here. To be clear, what I'm objecting to is the "harrrumph I'll support worker's unions IFF they hew exactly to my non-working-condition-…

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 work conditions and pay.

In the current political environment it’s not a stretch to imagine a union attempting to change Wiki policy to achieve political goals. Wikipedia is a public good and I would highly oppose this.

I’m more pro-union than most, I support having a union rep on the board as in German companies, but I think this should come with both designated powers and limits. The union gets a vote on the direction of the company, but they don’t get to dictate it, which would effectively be a seizure of the company. When it comes to work conditions and pay, they get a much stronger vote, strong enough to force fair compromises. That’s the union deal.

Co-ops are a better model for workers who want to join a company where they have full democratic control.

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

#164

Post by briandw »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #106
aliasxneo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

It looks like a healthy extended family where resources are shared towards a common goal of health and liberty.

Unfortunately this does not work at nation scale. We are not insects. Tribes fail at levels over a few hundred and that scale only works because of blood ties. Communism has failed to produce good outcomes every time it's been tried. Even coops aren't competitive with traditional corporations.

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

#165

Post by AndrewKemendo »

aliasxneo wrote: post #146
pocksuppet wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be so extreme though. Basic scenario: 20% of everyone's income is taxed and then distributed equally to everyone (no matter what, and without setting any fixed dollar amount), another 10% pays for administrative functions and government stuff except welfare, and the remaining 70% is theirs to do with as they please. What would happen? Would everyone quit their job? I don't think so, because 70% is…

I'd be fine with this so long as people who didn't contribute any taxes couldn't vote. Otherwise you're just signing up for those who choose to work to get exploited by the leisurely.

“I need the world to comfort my fears”

You’re correct. A society filled with people with this view can’t work

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

#166

Post by spopejoy »

iamnothere wrote: post #163
spopejoy wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, maybe you can enlighten us with some examples of "corrupted unions" focusing on harmful product changes to some kind of demonstrable extent? The issue of leadership corruption in unions is well-known and definitely does _not_ lead to the kind of PC tyranny you're worried about here. To be clear, what I'm objecting to is the "harrrumph I'll support worker's unions IFF they hew exactly to my non-working-condition-…

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 wo…

> 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 work conditions and pay.

These are examples of workers leveraging their collective strength to do something that putatively a majority of workers support (modulo corruption/bad leadership of course). Shall I now give you the endless scroll of management doing all of the above and worse? Yes, union workers have a modicum of power to impact company operation, but it's not built-in to the concept of collective bargaining and indeed your Google example "attempted" to do something; management can simply do it.

> it’s not a stretch to imagine a union attempting to change Wiki policy to achieve political goals. Wikipedia is a public good and I would highly oppose this.

Wikipedia is not a "public" good. There is no mechanism preventing Wales and co taking it whatever direction they want.

> Co-ops are a better model for workers who want to join a company where they have full democratic control.

Co-ops are indeed great, but Wikipedia is not offering to become a co-op. You are arguing for "designated powers and limits" on one side only. If you're "pro-union" you have to accept that this grants powers to the collective, and if you start putting brakes on it without doing the same for management, it's anti-union.

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

#167

Post by iamnothere »

spopejoy wrote: post #166
iamnothere wrote: post #163

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 wo…

> 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 board) by public investors. Now you may say that neither of these models should exist, but if that’s your position then the public should put it to a vote. Capturing and subverting companies through the back door inverts the entire ownership model without democratic input.

I actually do think that we should consider rewriting the model for public companies, at least, but it should be done democratically unless we’re opening the door to ending the current Constitutional order. Which may also be a possibility, but until then, the country still nominally operates under that framework.

Also, Wikipedia is “owned” by a nonprofit foundation governed by bylaws and values aligned with the public interest. This is much better than being fully private.

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

#168

Post by AndrewKemendo »

briandw wrote: post #164
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like a healthy extended family where resources are shared towards a common goal of health and liberty.

Unfortunately this does not work at nation scale. We are not insects. Tribes fail at levels over a few hundred and that scale only works because of blood ties. Communism has failed to produce good outcomes every time it's been tried. Even coops aren't competitive with traditional corporations.

Agreed, the human biological system likely needs radical augmentation in order to actually realize such a system

The median cortical volume fails beyond dunbars number, so some kind of compensation is needed

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

#169

Post by bluegatty »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #154
bluegatty wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" And the entire point of an NGO is to get around restrictions on what governments can do" - no, they can serve many purposes, and there are tons of things governments should not be doing. They are entities that have a civic purpose, not for profit. Yes, they can in some cases support political causes, that is normal. You seem to have a narrow view of what 'community' is aka something is either a 'charity' or 'govern…

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.

Post reply on HN