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

Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

cwu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 300 posts

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#181

Post by eru »

DrBazza wrote: post #174
Frieren wrote: post #56

There is no reason for any employee to not search for unionization. It is your right and it is in your best interest. Good for them.

In a jobs market place of wide choice, unionization is unnecessary. The tech job pool spans multiple industries, so if your employer is treating you poorly, leave. In a jobs market where there are few employers, maybe unionize, because those employers are essentially a monopsony. Hence, in the UK, the NHS, teaching, and public transport, where the employer is the Government, they're heavily unionized.

Until fairly recently, the general public used to be very suspicious of government employees unionising. Because it was unionising against them, the general public.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#182

Post by eru »

pydry wrote: post #101
meta_gunslinger wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worker here, with no aspiration of being a millionaire, a manager or an owner: I hate unions. They always end up being led by parasites that have no idea how to do the actual job, looking to rent-seek on the backs of people who do.

How much do you hate for time off at weekends, paid vacations and medical leave?

We have these in Singapore as well, and our unions are toothless.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#184

Post by eru »

Martinussen wrote: post #176
throwaway93135 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overlooking that we are comparing the richest EU state to all 50 US states, doesn't that further the point that having unions is are at best uninfluential.

Far from the richest by capita, average income, PPP average income, mean/median household wealth, etc., which feels like what we're actually talking about here. A lot of countries in the EU/Europe that would make the US look far worse, no? Either way, no, if unions don't reduce how much people make and provide stronger worker's rights, protection from corporate abuse, workplace safety, collective bargaining for thing…

> How many weeks of legally mandated paid time off do you get, and how many additional days do you get on top of that as a median worker in the US? :b

For comparison: unions are at best toothless in Singapore, there's no minimum wage, yet we have some of the highest wages in the world.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#185

Post by eru »

nickff wrote: post #9
hungryhobbit wrote: post #8

Man, it's sad how far the wiki foundation has fallen. For (literally) decades no one there would have even thought of forming a union! To get them to not only consider it, but actually go through the effort of actually doing it ... the foundation truly has shit the bed.

Wikipedia has a lot of money, along with a valuable dataset (for AI); it was only a matter of time until rent-seeker(s) would come along and try to get it. As we saw with OpenAI, it is difficult to keep a non-profit dedicated to its public benefit mission when it has something of tantalizing value.

The dataset is valuable in the same sense that water is valuable. It doesn't fetch a high price, because everyone can get it for free.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#186

Post by anothermathbozo »

throwaway93135 wrote: post #83
jonkoops wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahhh the American mindset.

Imagine how high must those salaries be in union-prolific Euro nations, compared to the measly ones of those uncivilized Americans!

Unions are not the primary mechanism between employers and workers for establishing fairer wages in many European countries. Unions are designed to level a power imbalance between an employer (typically a legal vehicle which aggregates the material self interest of various actors) and the employees who would otherwise have to act alone.

Myopically focusing on wages while ignoring the many other concerns about the distribution of power and legal rights is a common misunderstanding.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#187

Post by aaa_aaa »

tovej wrote: post #133
aaa_aaa wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In one of my previous work, I was "forced" to enter a public union. They were simply leeches sucking government money (surprise, government was paying union premiums) through workers with almost no actual benefits. Whenever somebody glorifies Unions I just chukle.

Was this in the US? In the US, anti-union action by the government and employers has been extra egregious historically. This has obviously impacted unions in the US. There's also LOTS of anti-union misinformation spreading in the US.

No it was not in US

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#188

Post by some_random »

throw93949444 wrote: post #132
weberer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is non disclosure agreement No there is not. You don't have to sign anything to make edits to Wikipedia. On the other hand, these people are full employees with work contracts.

There is like 50 page agreement, you even have to give up your copyright rights! The only way to do it legally in my country, is to hire editor as an employee!!! (Contractors can not legally give up copyright to their work) https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use

Have you ever read the ToS/ToU of any social media site? Did you know that by using this site you've agreed to arbitration? https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou

Giving up copyright when you write an article for Wikipedia is literally the only way it could possibly work. The biggest issue Wikimedia has is its full time staff, followed by full time editors.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#189

Post by some_random »

sandworm101 wrote: post #160
francisdavey wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You license your contributions under an open licence. You don't give up your copyright. There would be no other sensible way to operate a collaborative encyclopedia without a license of this kind. I (lawyer) have never encountered a jurisdiction where a contractor could not license their work under the contract with their employer (the person contracting them).

There are some non-divestable rights out there. Canada (and others) have a copyright concept of moral rights that cannot be given away by contract or, in other words, nobody can ever force someone to give them away. An artist/creator can decide to not exercise them but the artist/creator retains them regardless of contract language. >> Unlike other IP rights, moral rights cannot be sold or given away. Even in the cas…

How is the right non-divestable if you can waive it? More importantly, how could wikipedia possibly work if contributors retained copyright in any form over their submitted articles and edits?
Post reply on HN