Live data from Hacker News

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

en.wikipedia.org

351–360 of 379 posts

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

#351
post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter what the media publishes, it matters what blue-collar former democrats vote and they vote Trump. You are claiming that unions are what push the country forward, you claim the current state is the country is regressing, and yet union members voted for Trump. And they did so despite Trump's anti-worker record. Your view doesn't match reality.

> You are claiming that unions are what push the country forward Again, no, you are rather mischaracterising what I said. I have certainly argued that unions did in the past push the USA forward in terms of labour rights and worker protections — you only have to read about the history of the AFL-CIO to know that this is true. You have most of your few workers rights because of collective action (and as a country you…

> Again, no, you are rather mischaracterising what I said.

Ok then let's characterize it better. Are unions today a force for pushing the country forward?

> you could have had by falling for Reaganite cartooned claptrap about unions

I'm not arguing against unions. Just to be clear.

> Or… Trump misled and lied to underinformed voters? Again?

There's a saying I think. Have you heard it? A very famous person once said it:

"Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again."

I think voters, regardless of political party, know pretty well what they're voting for. That includes Trump voters. I don't think he lied to them, he said in many ways exactly what he would do if elected to office and he has tried to in many ways to fulfill those campaign promises. It's just that while some policies are arguably harming workers, those workers or those who voted for Trump (which was a majority of the country by the way) cared about other issues (immigration, COVID policies, whatever) than they do the issues you think they should care about.

> Also some of those links I shared were union pages, and one of them is a White House document literally announcing the elimination of collective bargaining power for federal workers, so, no, it is not just the media.

Well there are two problems with this. The first is that union leadership statements are not the same thing as union members voting. The second is that of course unionized federal workers would be against the federal government dissolving their unionized workforce. Other unions don't face quite the same level of existential crises or dissolution by fiat.

> https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/17/key-facts...

> when tempted with populist baubles

Right, like the DSA ;) ?

Politically, if you wanted to pin me down more accurately I'm against all populists. MAGA, Socialists, Communists, or otherwise. I really don't have a problem with unions, I just think the points you are making are incorrect.

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

#352
post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have enough employees to need a union and a board? It's a CRUD PHP site that I could run from a VPS (joking ofc, but not that much off). I've never worked in an industry where unionization was a thing, but my general understanding is that the unions are protectionist dreaming of things that were true before but not today, but they want to keep things as they were. Good luck. I've benefited from Wikipedia, but I…

You might find it interesting to read some of the 2026-2027 infrastructure OKRs: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...

Hi there, thanks. I scanned through them. Bots, scraping, was there something that's interesting, no sarcasm?

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

#353

Wikipedia's side > [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward. This process protects individual choice and ensures that any outcome reflects the collective will of those eligible to participate. > [Jimmy Wales:] One of the problems with the process so far is that it was not secret and we have heard from some staff members that they felt pressu…

> Honestly, I'm on Wikipedia's side: there should be a true secret ballot.

Mission accomplished for Jimmy Wales then, "aw shucks I like unions but there's this one thing about a process that has worked for literally every other organization effort. Wouldn't want those volunteer organizers intimidating workers!"

C.f. Dario Amodei: "I LOVE open weight models, they just need to pass this little safety test, who doesn't want safety?"

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

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, yes, blame the victims. It's always the fault of the pedestrian for being in the road.

Go read why they want to unionize

Hmm someone responded to you with their demands, asking which demand you find unreasonable, no response? Does your prompt forbid actually reading responses?

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

#355
post #154

I hate unions. I hate lawyers. I hate any consolidation of power in general, so I hate all sides here. And I've never had the "I want a refund" feeling on donating to (what I thought was) a charity, that I now think deeply misrepresented itself when it asked for money.

Workers unhappy with their treatment looking to organize makes you hate them?

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

#356
post #79

My understanding from trying to read the post is that WF isn’t happy with the process because the vote isn’t closed. It doesn’t sound completely unreasonable to me. And then they are attacked because they are working with a law firm, since a decade or so, with things that has nothing to do with union recognition thing. Apparently that law firm is known as a ”union buster”, but there’s no evidence that the law firm ha…

You're right that WF is attacked and operates as a public resource which makes it a target. But that means they also need to be held accountable by sympathetic forces because a fortress mentality can easily emerge.

Unions have few friends in power, so we can assume this is not a false flag by WFs enemies. Nobody is forcing Jimmy Wales to put his name to a union-busting sentiment. Let's examine it:

> I want a process where staff are safe to deliberate in the privacy of their own minds and make the decision based on all the available evidence that makes the most sense to them. So I don't think insisting on a proper vote is process for the sake of process and I say that with my own estimate that the staff will vote to support unionization. I think we'll be in a better place if it's really clear - a clean and clear choice with no chance of pressure.

If he really believes they will vote for unionization then why would he insinuate that there will be some nefarious "pressure" applied by volunteer organizers? Blocking an outcome he claims to expect because he wants workers to be "safe": remember, workers are organizing precisely because they don't feel "safe" with management.

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

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

none of the Mag 7 have unions They all recognise unions and have unionised employees in countries where unions are the default, with the exception of Tesla.

Not really. At least not in the way that matters.

Maybe you could explain what matters and what doesn’t?

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

#358

> we have heard from some staff members that they felt pressured because the organizers would know how they decided in 2026? one would think wikipedia people pick up some self-help literature now and then and know how to fake a backbone until you grow one ... ( I have my own share of behaviors that I should have fixed when I was 11 so don't take this the wrong way ) What is this? Hierarchical pressure? At freaking wi…

> There are union-busting law firms? What are they gonna do? Infiltrate your meetups?

Infiltration is just one tactic that a law firm that blares their union-busting credentials on their home page can certainly advise your c-suite on. Worker intimidation, employing informants, exploiting regulation loopholes ...

Just ask wikipedia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting#Labor_attorneys_...

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

#359
post #293

So WMF and Wiki was pro union for all of their information and reporting but Anti union when it is for themselves.

Being in management is a kind of brain virus that is infectious no matter what kind of organization is being managed.

Humans just don't do hierarchy well

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

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Capitalists have the same option. Don't like the union? Resign.

Union can form and make their own business. Why do you communists always salivate at the opportunity of taking what others build?
Post reply on HN