8 ms·
Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- estimator7292 2mo ago[dead]
- matchbok3 2mo ago[flagged]
- sam_lowry_ 2mo agoCan you provide your view of the events, then?
- literalAardvark 2mo agoRead the post. It's all fear mongering around a very balanced response from the WMF. Could they engage in union-busting? Sure. Did they? No.
- FeepingCreature 2mo agoNote that I know nothing about the topic but the article, but the article says: > [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward. Honestly, that was the point where I stopped reading and hid this story. They used a non-secret election! Fuck them tbh. Jimmy Wales is entirely right here.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo agoThey followed the process for forming a union in the US. The claim that the Foundation totally supports the right to unionize but wants to hold a secret election would be a lot more credible if this happened before the workers had a supermajority (!) of signatures collected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check
- jacobgkau 2mo ago> They followed the process for forming a union in the US. They followed a process. Secret ballots are also an established process. From your own link: > Since the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) became law in 1935, card check has been an alternative to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) election process. My understanding is that a secret ballot election is actually the more common scenario. > The claim that the Foundation totally supports the right to unionize but wants to hold a secret election would be a lot more credible if this happened before the workers had a supermajority (!) of signatures collected. Do you really envision a situation where a supermajority of signatures were collected from fully non-coerced and well-informed employees, but some union-busting magic is going to cause them to lose a secret ballot election?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo agoI envision a scenario where the foundation just tries to drag out the process as long as possible because that's the best they can do in the situation they're in. I envision this because I've seen the same strategy used elsewhere myself (in the unionization context) and delaying to wear down opponents is a common strategy (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay,_Deny,_Defend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay,_Deny,_Defend) > They followed a process. Both of the processes require collecting signatures in the same way, the difference is what happens afterwards and when. Even for the election they would have to collect signatures, so claiming that collecting the signatures was somehow "wrong" for not being a secret vote suggests either a lack of understanding or intentionally trying to muddy the waters.
- themaninthedark 2mo agoSee, what you are missing is the games that would be played if they did a secret election. "Can you prove that only employees voted in this?" "Can you prove there was no ballot stuffing? " I am not generally pro-union, I believe it has it's place but have also seen downsides but I have seen these games played out before.
- FeepingCreature 2mo agoYou can play games with secret elections. You can play much much worse and much more common games with open elections. To be honest, they should prove that only employees voted and they should prove there was no ballot stuffing. That's just baseline competence.
- waisbrot 2mo agoThe article appeared to state both the facts and the assumptions being made off of them pretty clearly.
- matchbok3 2mo ago[flagged]
- cowsandmilk 2mo agoBoth halves of the title are true statements.
- WarmWash 2mo agoUnfortunately you can construct just about any narrative using true statements. Omission of facts is usually the damning trait of dishonesty.
- InsideOutSanta 2mo agoYou need to be more specific than that if you want to convince people. As far as I can tell, the title is factually correct; if it's not, I'd like to hear your argument.
- inigyou 2mo agoGiven your other, completely insane comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49143931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49143931 I am inclined to assume that you are paid to oppose unions online. Also your recent comment history consists entirely of angry contrarianism.
- fn-mote 2mo agoGP posting account is 4 months old, 40 karma. Recently became active. Check comment history. Does not seem to engage in productive dialogue.
- matchbok3 2mo agoImagine seeing a comment you disagree with and find the urge to dig into someone's history and try to tar and feather them. Do better.
- matchbok3 2mo agoInsane? Please stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. Disagreement is not insane. Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is some paid shill. Like... really? Hilarious. Grow up.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo ago> Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is some paid shill. Whether it's true or not, making dubious arguments from a relatively new online account is actually indistinguishable from trolling. Your replies are not helping the matter.
- jordanb 2mo agoSV is a cancer. Even its charities are like this.
- Stitch4223 2mo ago“SV”?
- hobofan 2mo agoSilicon Valey
- tyromaniac 2mo agoMaybe silicon valley
- tchalla 2mo agoI think all these silly little acronyms and abbreviations are the real cancer. I don’t why people feel the need to use it. Poor communication skills in my books.
- trial3 2mo ago> I don’t why people casting the first stone, i see
- rexreed 2mo agoSV is so SV-centric that people in SV can only call SV "SV" and assume everyone outside SV knows what they are talking about.
- throwaway613746 2mo agoYou're on HN, the SV site for SV brained SV people.
- oblio 2mo agoWe're on the newsite of a Silicon Valley venture capital fund.
- hamper653 2mo agoCan someone explain what "union recognition" means, concretely?
- evolve2k 2mo agoAt the conceptual level, unionising is simply a group of workers gathering into a group and saying we want to negotiate as a group. Usually this is done by workers to improve conditions and to have a better say when they’ve been being ignored or worse, poorly treated. Union recognition is then the company accepting that the union exists and then agreeing to meet and engage with it. Not accepting it, is usually a crappy corporate move in an attempt to not have workers collaborating together. Lots of research shows that generally places where unions exist have better work conditions and perform better over the long term. The US has lower union involvement than in many countries.
- ericmay 2mo ago> 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?
- dofm 2mo agoThe 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.
- TheTaytay 2mo agoI 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. (But have great working conditions until the last day) And vice-versa for pro industry research. Unions are adversarial, and feel necessary to people that view employment or employers through that lens. It’s possible that we can still credit unions with the status quo, but 1they have nowhere near the adoption of vaccines to make the analogy a good one. I’d rather debate “which employers/industries” need unions than debate whether they are objectively good in all circumstances.
- glass1122 2mo ago[dead]
- inigyou 2mo ago[flagged]
- WarmWash 2mo agoThis makes it look like the goal of the union is to get into the piggy bank, rather than reverse some kind of hellish work environment.
- doginasuit 2mo agoFair compensation is a legitimate reason for unions. I don't know much about this situation, but I know it is possible for unions to basically be a group of drama-oriented bullies that pressure their coworkers to join. A secret ballot seems like the right way to ensure it actually reflects the will of the employee base.
- estearum 2mo agoThe linked article doesn't even come close to suggesting money laundering. It really just argues that Wikimedia is similar to virtually every other successful organization on earth and that its bloat grows with its resources. Wow insightful. The mere existence of The Mythical Man-Month or Peopleware does not prevent this behavior. Turns out it's actually super, super hard to avoid. It's pervasive enough to have several books written about it, and several more angry blogs written about specific companies' failure to achieve the allegedly "easy, obvious" thing that very, very few companies actually succeed at doing! Makes me wonder if it's not so obvious or so easy... hmm... Nah, probably everyone else is malicious and/or stupid.
- cyanydeez 2mo agoIt is interesting how "enshittification" just happens because of scale.
- estearum 2mo agoPeople are really not curious enough about bureaucracy. We complain literally our entire lives about "bureaucracy" and all the bad outcomes it produces. But I've met literally no one who thought "hmm... if there's this emergent phenomenon across virtually every single large-scale human endeavor... and that phenomenon seems to systematically produce undesirable outcomes... at the cost of billions of dollars or millions of lives... maybe I oughta inspect this phenomenon more closely!"
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo agoRemember that this is what your money funds when you donate to it...
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- inigyou 2mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer 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 beast so it learns to live frugally again. Jimmy needs his third yacht, dangit!
- PunchyHamster 2mo agoFeels like where Mozilla went
- inigyou 2mo agoGreat analogy.
- neilk 2mo agoI don’t know if you’re joking or not but of course Wales doesn’t profit directly from this. And, as a non-profit, compensation of executives is public knowledge. I believe Board members get zero compensation other than reimbursement for travel expenses. (Jimmy Wales did cash in on his reputation with some ads for luxury watches and idk what else he does for $). Salaries at the WMF have absolutely exploded, though they started out very low given the location and the talent base they were competing for. You probably want the WMF to be a somewhat competitive employer, and Silicon Valley salaries are also through the roof across the board. So those $400K executive salaries are (grating my teeth) vaguely justifiable. A volunteer-run page summarizes salary progression in key roles (up to 2024) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie... So you can be assured your money isn’t going to the executives’ bank accounts, not directly anyway. However, this is precisely why non-profit organizations tend to get bloated. The executives can’t get away with a million dollar salaries and not other goodies like stock grants. But you can justify staffing up, which benefits the careers of the executives.
- z0ltan 2mo ago[dead]
- joaquieneCnix 2mo ago> 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 wikipedia? Fear of getting pressured into eventual compliance? At freaking wikipedia? How the hell does a foundation select a board like that? And what are they gonna do? Send Napalm, Agent Orange, Sarin Gas? There are union-busting law firms? What are they gonna do? Infiltrate your meetups? I'm a bit baffled
- jordanb 2mo ago> we have heard from some staff members that they felt pressured because the organizers would know how they decided This is a statement written by their lawyers to activate the NLRB secret balloting process. The company is supposed to accept the union cards unless they have reason to believe that the cards were signed under duress (the popular image of "union thugs" with baseball bats intimidating people).
- joaquieneCnix 2mo agoThanks for the reminder, JB.
- spopejoy 2mo ago> 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_and_consultancies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting#Labor_attorneys_...
- armchairhacker 2mo agoWikipedia'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 pressured because the organizers would know how they decided. That isn't a great process and it goes against our movement's values quite badly to have people in a situation where they are pressured into something one way or the other. Counter-argument > The community response to the WMF statement has mostly been one of dismay, with fears that the Foundation will use the time gap between now and the secret ballot to discourage employees from union involvement, using union busting methods as described humorously in an episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver The episode is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8, a transcript is at https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/tv-series/union-busting-last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver-transcript/ https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/tv-series/union-busting-last-w... --- Honestly, I'm on Wikipedia's side: there should be a true secret ballot. It should be soon and I'd be fine seeing the union win. Sure Wikipedia can use threats and propaganda in the meantime (so can Wiki Workers United), but that is less coercive than a public ballot.
- estearum 2mo agoYeah for the counterargument like... if you were afraid of tipping your hand, maybe you should've done it the correct way (anonymously) the first time?
- jordanb 2mo agoThey are doing it the correct way. In order to get union recognition you need to get enough people in the company to sign union cards. This is the normal way to create a union. Companies argued that some people could be coerced and so the NLRB created a "two step" process in case the company protests the creation of the union. Basically if the company says "we don't think these cards were signed under proper circumstances" the NLRB would come in and hold a secret ballot. That is basically what's happening here, and "wikipedia's side" is actually them reading a statement written by their lawyers in order to activate the NLRB balloting process. The real reason why the companies like to invoke the secret ballot process is it takes a long time, and this gives them a lot of time to fight the union, fire the organizers, and "convince" employees to withdraw their support.
- amazingamazing 2mo agoGood. Most tech unions are worthless and only accelerate outsourcing. Unions can be good though, like in construction where the work is inherently dangerous.
- cyanydeez 2mo agoyes, yes, blame the victims. It's always the fault of the pedestrian for being in the road.
- amazingamazing 2mo agoGo read why they want to unionize
- sassbadger 2mo agoWhy don't you enlighten us.
- spopejoy 2mo agoHmm someone responded to you with their demands, asking which demand you find unreasonable, no response? Does your prompt forbid actually reading responses?
- CrimsonRain 2mo ago[flagged]
- inigyou 2mo agoCapitalists have the same option. Don't like the union? Resign.
- CrimsonRain 2mo agoUnion can form and make their own business. Why do you communists always salivate at the opportunity of taking what others build?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- Telaneo 2mo agoWhich Side Are You On?
- Matl 2mo ago[flagged]
- bwb 2mo ago[flagged]
- ck2 2mo agoI have never understood why it's okay and not wildly illegal for anyone to interfere with unions at any level in the USA Then again we still don't have universal healthcare and now even more million have lost health insurance due to cost so I guess it's stupid all the way down People just keep voting against themselves. might be billionaires someday so gotta protect dubious "rights" of the ultra-wealthy just in case
- inigyou 2mo agoBecause the USA is an oligarchy of the ultra-wealthy. Next question? Definition of oligarchy: like a dictatorship, but with more than one dictator.
- dofm 2mo ago> I have never understood why it's okay and not wildly illegal for anyone to interfere with unions at any level in the USA The entire conversation around unions in the USA is a cartoon, basically. But if people don't know what rights they have lost, or are convinced by studies that talk mostly about growth or the freedom of capital rather than the rights of people, or accept the framing of things like crudely compare the GDP of the poorest US state with EU states or the UK and say, "look, they are worse off than us", they will never understand the basic, useful functions of ordinary, professionalised unions. I am a freelancer so I don't have access to one, really, but the framing I like best about unions is: imagine what it would be like if the HR department was ever actually on your side. That is what a union can do.
- bawolff 2mo agoNote, this is also about the UK union not just the USA one.
- Ma8ee 2mo agoMy 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 has been involved in the negotiations around the union. To me the argument that WF is evil and hostile to unions is weak. I’m always careful when I see a post about how bad and evil WF is. They come up quite frequently nowadays. WF have powerful enemies, because you can still read things like climate change is real and vaccines are good for you there. I don’t think WF is perfect, and I do think their shortcomings should be publicly criticised and discussed. But overall, I still think they are an important force for good, and will continue my monthly donations to them.
- spopejoy 2mo agoYou'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.
- decimalenough 2mo agoI'm hardly a fan of the WMF, but the headline is clickbait. The WMF has used a law firm called Jones Day for brand and trademark management for over a decade. The firm is one of the largest legal firms in the US and it also does union busting, but a) the WMF does not appear to have engaged them for that, and b) the relationship long predates the current kerfuffle.
- sassbadger 2mo ago> However, it eventually transpired that the Foundation has chosen to be represented by the law firm Littler Mendelson, which has an equally strong reputation for union busting.
- psunavy03 2mo agoYeah, Littler is one of THE union-busting, anti-worker law firms out there. Their website specifically notes that they specialize in labor law from only the side of representing management.
- traverseda 2mo agoI didn't expect it to be that prominent. First text on there says that they represent employers in big header letters.
- jq-r 2mo agoI've seen them in action in my previous company. They've butchered it, the best talent left, and the company is the shell of itself. And all because workers disagreed with a "RTO" mandate and wanted to continue working remote. The company was remote first since day one, but the new CEO wouldn't have it so he hired those abominable lawyers.
- nekusar 2mo agoThey actively campaigned and defended Trump in 2016 2020 AND 2024 Who you associate with is absolutely up for discussion. And the WMF is OK with hiring staunch Trump defenders.
- mattlondon 2mo agoSigh. For me Wikipedia is synonymous with petty bickering and fiefdoms and politics. Why I am not surprised by this? It's like student unions only worse
- woodpanel 2mo ago[flagged]
- ymolodtsov 2mo agoI 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.
- inigyou 2mo agoFor exactly the same reason as factory workers or store clerks: to even out the power imbalance against the owners.
- unknownfuture 2mo agoI 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.
- sokoloff 2mo agoWhat’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 them all the union overhead and prevent their exceptional talent from being properly rewarded.
- unknownfuture 2mo agoLook I'm not going to teach you about the entire history of labor relations and the role of unions. But rest assured that this isn't some new, unique moment in history. The exact same questions could have been raised during the introduction of automation in literally any industry throughout modern history. And yes, unions have, through that same period, acted as a critical bulwark in protecting worker rights.
- 2mo ago
- dannyw 2mo agoSome people here think Wikimedia Foundation's mission is to keep Wikipedia up. That's a subset of their mission. I attribute nearly all of the blame to WMF, because their donation ads are quite deceptive. The actual, public mission of Wikimedia Foundation: > The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. As such, WMF spends a lot money (combined) on a splatter of projects, like funding photographers to go to events like Fifa World Cup and Cannes, and take (CC or public domain) portraits for Wikimedia Commons (https://www.wikiportraits.org https://www.wikiportraits.org); etc.
- shimman 2mo agoThat's pretty cool and worthy endeavor. Having public domain pictures of cultural events seems like a worthy cause IMO.
- alt227 2mo agoThe point is when you go to Wikipedia and they are on a funding drive with their very prominent ads for donation requests, they dont mention any of this. They make it sound like wikipedia is very much at risk of dying due to lack of funds when in reality they are looking for more funding for programmes like this, which is where a lot of the mistrust and 'deceptive advertising' opinions come from.
- inigyou 2mo agoThey could tell us which programs.
- alt227 2mo agoThey could, but if their donation ads said for example 'please help us to take more photos of live events' instead of 'we need your help to keep wikipedia alive' then they would not get half the donations they do currently, which is the point.
- shevy-java 2mo agoIt may be due time to disentangle the Wikimedia Foundation from Wikipedia.
- ocd 2mo agoI 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.
- spopejoy 2mo agoWorkers unhappy with their treatment looking to organize makes you hate them?
- electroplankton 2mo ago[dead]
- alsetmusic 2mo agoAs a strong supporter of unions, that's the end of my donations. I've probably donated fewer than a dozen times, but definitely more than five or six. I felt reasonably good about it and went on with my day, no hesitation about supporting them. That's done. Fwiw, unions often have support pages where you can donate or buy merch to support. One of my favorite tshirts advocates for a union that was trying to form at a huge retail chain (looking at you Starbucks Workers United). I did a quick search and this[0] appears to be them. 0. https://www.wikiworkersunited.org https://www.wikiworkersunited.org
- mchusma 2mo agoCurious why you support unions in general? It’s kind of like saying “I support governments” or “I support companies”.
- nativeit 2mo agoI make a very small (relatively) salary as a self-employed IT consultant and support provider, but I still take ~$25 each month to split between the organizations and charities I find worthwhile. For a long time, that’s included a $3/mo recurring contribution to Wikipedia (or WMF, really). I have long believed Wikipedia to be a vital source of free information, and a surprisingly effective and enduring community that’s bent towards truth. I still believe that. But I do not ever want to see my very limited charitable contributions be spent on anti-worker programs, so I’ll be ending my recurring subscription today, and for the moment I will simply add it to the the contributions I donate to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who voluntarily recognized their worker’s union, as WikiMedia Foundation should.
- fleroviumna 2mo ago[dead]
- spencerflem 2mo agoI am normally the first to complain that people in hacker news are biased against WMF in a way that seems forced and weird (oh no ! they’re sponsoring some cool open culture stuff in addition to running the website ! they pay for more than literally just web server hosting !) But this is obscene. I’ve cancelled my donation.
- ksec 2mo agoSo WMF and Wiki was pro union for all of their information and reporting but Anti union when it is for themselves.
- spopejoy 2mo agoBeing 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
- drcongo 2mo agoThat's the last donation I give them.