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

Post by ameliaquining » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 2:16 PM UTC

llm_nerd wrote: post #119

hkt wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he thought that, he was probably expressing the view that he doesn't think the representative person's understanding of the term is the same as yours. I have to confess, I've never heard anyone talk about money laundering in the way you suggest.

The root of this thread literally uses it in the way I observed. So...never? It's literally right there! I see similar uses everywhere (speaking specifically of the general public, not financial industry professionals), calling every misallocation, misspend, or even simple fraud money laundering. Reddit, HN, Facebook, LinkedIn...everything is money laundering. Again, I'm kind of an expert in AML, so I probably pay at…

Post by senordevnyc » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 2:18 PM UTC

inigyou wrote: post #133

mcmcmc wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government). That’s not at all what a union is. Why else would federal workers need their own unions? The point of a union is collective bargaining power for labor. Federal workers have little to no bargaining power when budgets are set by Congress. Especially when they can’t strike.

I can't parse this comment in relation to the context.

Post by dofm » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 2:21 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #160

dofm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The non partisan source is the history of the industrial revolution itself. I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been). > 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 enga…

Post by wildfireday2 » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 2:23 PM UTC

inigyou wrote: post #138

wildfireday2 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You both have it mostly backwards. The Taft-Hartley act mostly bans closed shops and allows states to pass “right to work” laws making payment of any agency fees to unions optional. In no state are any employees compelled to formally join a union. In an American-style “closed shops” in a non-right-to-work state, if you don’t join the union the bargaining agreement can charge nonmembers an agency fee representing most…

It just struck me how dystopian the phrase "right to work" is. Like, you have the right to go down the coal mine for 16 hours a day and get lung cancer! No right to get paid, though...

Post by cool_dude85 » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 2:29 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #145

unknownfuture wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only assume you aren't paying attention to, and aren't personally experiencing, the impact of AI on the industry. Power has shifted dramatically in favour of the ownership class in the last couple of years. That's precisely what unions are meant to counterbalance.

What’s a union going to do if (doing a lot of work there) AI significantly reduces the demand for software engineers or tech workers generally? If employers have the upper hand at the moment, the union contract will be more evenly distributed perhaps, but isn’t likely to be “better” overall. That combines to have tech workers, who often have an exceptionalist view of themselves, to conclude that a union would cost th…