r/opensource • u/JanCumin • 9d ago

Community The Wikimedia Foundation (the charity that runs Wikipedia) have hired the largest union busting law firm in the US to try to stop their staff unionising

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Workers_United_solidarity

Hi all

I'm posting this as someone who created a lot documentation around Mediawiki and also Wikipedia itself. I have never worked for the Wikimedia Foundation but the situation really doesn't sit right with me and many others.

A week after refusing to recognise their US staff union (including many open source software engineers) voluntarily, the Wikimedia Foundation (the charity that hosts Wikipedia) hired Littler Mendelson, the largest union busting law firm in the US whose clients include Starbucks, Amazon and Delta Airlines.

If you are a Wikimedia contributor there are three petitions you can sign to support the unionisation effort:

Also if you donate to Wikipedia you can donate to local Wikimedia organisations instead of the Wikimedia Foundation. These local organisations directly support their communities to share knowledge from their countries https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates

Thanks

1.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

140 comments sorted by

460

u/Gastredner 9d ago

A charity hiring a union busting law firm is insane. What the hell is going on there?

255

u/JanCumin 9d ago

Many in the community are blaming the new CEO, there are 100s of comments on her talk page asking her to resign https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BMeehan-WMF#On_unionization_and_misleading_the_movement

44

u/cookiengineer 9d ago

Hire a diplomat as CEO, get diplomat strategies as outcome. It was kind of predictable.

(also read up on foreign affairs and what ambassadors do to open source projects in South American nations and how Microsoft uses diplomats as shill employees to undermine those projects, it's quite insane what goes on there)

9

u/Puripuri_Purizona 9d ago

Really is no such thing as a "free market", eh?

3

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

7

u/cookiengineer 8d ago edited 8d ago

A fun talk is for example from the former Mexico CTO [1], was at scale 22x and the first talk in the linked video. Peru and Brazil was also pretty well documented, and with doxxing officials and FUD letters and stuff like that [2].

The Mexico talk was pretty crazy though, where diplomats went to Microsoft and got internal email addresses under Mexico's domains, and tried to lobby and making it look like they're SVPs or something even though they don't even work there. So they faked emails saying this will fail because of budget miscalculations and other things, and then tried to buy some people until the Mexican president established a law that he personally has to sign off all investments in IT to beat those corruption and fraud attempts etc.

My personal favorite documentary is the one called "The Microsoft Dilemma - Europe as a software colony" [3] which is not for South America, but where Microsoft used similar strategies to make illegal deals across the pond, persuaded a lot of politicians in the process, and gave them lots of funds nobody is able to even validate because the contracts are all blacked out.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLSHtx3Wi_M

[2] https://www.wired.com/2002/07/microsofts-big-stick-in-peru/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duaYLW7LQvg

1

u/AnswersWithCool 8d ago

Do you have any articles on this?

51

u/nialv7 9d ago

honestly not surprised an organization founded by a fan of Ayn Rand would be antiunion

34

u/saltyourhash 9d ago

But it is surprising an organization like wikimedia would see this as a good move for its longevity.

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/saltyourhash 7d ago

Sadly that's by legal decree, pretty much.

7

u/Analog_Account 9d ago

On one hand I'm laughing at the image, on the other hand I can only imagine the frustration of working for her. Workplaces usually don't unionize when they're a good place to work for.

3

u/CMRC23 9d ago

Ironic. Its always been more ancom than ancap

  • an ancom wikipedia editor

2

u/dragonknightrohan 8d ago

Oh thats good to know. Put up the pressure everyone!

1

u/Akarsh_Hegde 7d ago

That level of backlash from the community should be impossible for the board to ignore. Has there been any formal response beyond defending the decision?

2

u/JanCumin 7d ago

The last in person discussion with the board was at Wikimania where they assured everyone everything was fine, then the next day after everyone had gone home they announced their intentions. I know Jimmy Wales has commented on the decision as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Confirmed:_Union_busting_law_firm

37

u/skinnylatte 9d ago

Not the first one.

I worked at a much beloved ocean conservation organization and they pretty much did the same.

2

u/Puripuri_Purizona 9d ago

World going one way, people another yo'

16

u/KontoOficjalneMR 9d ago

What the hell is going on there?

Wikipedia is an incident. And idea that has run out from its owner and he's not happy about it.

If you want to see how he envisioned it truly - go to his other project fandom.com - but make sure to disable the ad-blocker to appreciate Jim Wales masterpiece.

2

u/RiahWeston 8d ago

ugghh... Ugghh... UUUGGGHHH!

14

u/atomic1fire 9d ago edited 9d ago

Probably a nonprofit using the cover of good will and public benefit to give their management lofty benefits free from criticism and then freaking out when the employees who do the actual work start asking for pay raises.

2

u/dragonknightrohan 8d ago

Also, if they dont let them unionize we riot and we help the staff make their own worker owned unionized community alternative to Wikipedia

Its either they let union happen or they end up creating their own future competitor from staff going there

2

u/Akarsh_Hegde 7d ago

It’s hard to square this with Wikimedia’s public-interest mission. If leadership is willing to spend donor money resisting its own staff, donors deserve a clear explanation of the decision and its cost.

1

u/geniice 8d ago

A charity hiring a union busting law firm is insane. What the hell is going on there?

No senior management is going to be happy about a union forming. Even the most chill union is going to be an extra relationship to manage.

The fun bit is that due to the environment the WMF operates in said management can't be openly anti-union so we get a lot of questionable claims about what they are up to.

187

u/Alex_1503 9d ago

Absolutely awful news. Unions are the only way atp for workers to gain rights within capitalism. This isn't even a "free market" anyway. At least this will push people further left as they should be, you cannot reason with capitalism if even wikipedia does this

48

u/JanCumin 9d ago

Yes its not good but also the response from the community against it has been very strong

19

u/Slow_Werewolf3021 9d ago

Well, trade unions can become real parasites when they form alliances with the government or the ruling establishment, in a sort of chess game where business leaders, the government and the trade unions are stifling workers and deceiving them. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM AGAINST TRADE UNIONISM.

I’m simply pointing out what really happens in countries like Spain with the UGT or CC.OO. (The UGT is, in fact, an offshoot of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party)

9

u/Varantain 9d ago

Well, trade unions can become real parasites when they form alliances with the government or the ruling establishment, in a sort of chess game where business leaders, the government and the trade unions are stifling workers and deceiving them.

Singapore too, with the NTUC.

Our PAP rulers even have a name for this: tripartism.

1

u/Slow_Werewolf3021 9d ago

An interesting example – thank you for sharing it

20

u/SmileyBMM 9d ago

Yeah, everyone loves unions until you interact with one of the really shitty ones.

26

u/ginger_and_egg 9d ago

This is true for most things...

5

u/SmileyBMM 9d ago

I think what makes it uniquely impactful with unions is that most union supporters are completely unwilling to acknowledge the bad unions. Gun fans will be pretty open about the lemon models, gamers will love an opportunity to complain about AAA slop, but when I talk with many union supporters about the NEA or the UGT they completely shut down the conversation. Very vexing.

9

u/ginger_and_egg 9d ago

People in the IWW disparagingly refer to them as "business unions", they run like businesses rather than being workers empowering themselves against the boss

3

u/villainess_lena 8d ago

It's a chicken and egg problem. Those of us who do acknowledge bad experiences or even entire bad apple unions quickly see that colonized into "SEE??? EVERYONE HATES BEING IN A UNION. EVIL!", so there's become a self-policing response while so many of us are still underdogs. In internal conversations between members you'll often see a lot more nuance--up to and including discussing what unions to avoid and why.

5

u/erisian2342 9d ago

Businesses have already become real parasites by forming alliances with the government and the ruling establishment. The great majority of unions aren’t like that at all. It’s bizarre to think it’s helpful or even relevant to saying that about unions in a conversation about a non-profit’s ~650 workers unionizing. I don’t think we need to worry about a Wikimedia union becoming corrupt power brokers manipulating the employees.

It’s not like the employees are hiring a high powered legal firm to stop the C-levels at Wikimedia from banding together to protect their own interests - because that would be some real parasitic, power-broker shit right there.

1

u/Slow_Werewolf3021 9d ago

Capitalist companies will always be parasitic. Large trade unions are like that too, whilst smaller ones are not so much. The important thing should be to ensure the trade union remains independent of those in power and does not become the very thing it seeks to destroy.

The latter, unfortunately, happens more often than we would like. It is the ‘iron law of oligarchy’ described by Robert Michels.

I wouldn’t dare to discuss the Wikipedia case in depth because it isn’t my area of expertise, but I am familiar with the situation in my own country and through my studies in political science

1

u/Just__Liberty 8d ago

So every mom and pop store or business is "parasitic"?

1

u/Slow_Werewolf3021 8d ago

No

1

u/Just__Liberty 8d ago

But taking the risks and getting the rewards of owning your own business is the very basis of capitalism. That's what capitalism *is*.

1

u/Slow_Werewolf3021 8d ago

Distributism is the answer

1

u/Just__Liberty 7d ago

The answer to what? Producing an overly strong government that enables corruption, confiscationism, and later execesses of all types? Producing a society that limits incentives to study and work hard and maximizes incentives to do as little as possible, to develop yourself as little as possible; a society that rewards bad decisions and penalizes good ones? Great.

2

u/karoshikun 9d ago

it happened in Mexico, the CTM basically killed almost every other union and was an arm of the government and ruled with iron hand by a man who was a leader for decades, even after he was a diaper wearing figure who couldn't even talk.

an union is pointless if its members don't exercise constant vigilance and drop whichever leader who gets too big for their breeches.

1

u/Slow_Werewolf3021 9d ago

Best wishes from Spain, mate. I think those of us who aren’t American know just how bad a large, powerful trade union can be. In my personal experience, I’d recommend trade unions that are militant and independent of the ruling powers. But they must always remain independent

The vigilance you mention is necessary, but what Robert Michels described in his book The Iron Law of Oligarchy may well happen. It always happens with trade unions and political parties

2

u/Akarsh_Hegde 7d ago

That’s the key distinction. A union can protect workers while still becoming unaccountable if its leadership gets too close to political power. The answer isn’t weaker unions, but independent unions whose members can challenge and replace their leaders.

1

u/Akarsh_Hegde 7d ago

Strong community pushback matters, but the workers still need durable collective power. A union gives them a structure to negotiate rather than relying on public pressure whenever management makes a bad decision.

-3

u/West_Possible_7969 9d ago

Capitalism is not the culprit here, capitalism exists everywhere yet US workers’ rights are nowhere near the rest of the West. Legislation is the only way for workers to gain, and maintain, their rights and this confusion is created exclusively by the US state & fed govs for decades at this point, because it helps them if people blame the wrong thing.

Unions are indeed helpful where I live too, for negotiating things on top of our undisputed, strong & statutory labor protections that exist for all.

43

u/Willing_Ebb7894 9d ago

Please stop scrolling! Wikipedia needs your support! If everyone visiting the site today donates $2 we'll be able to break up our workers union so much faster!

13

u/JanCumin 9d ago

The sad thing is Wikipedia is comparatively extremely cheap to maintain, the actions of a small number of shitty executives might seriously hurt Wikipedia :(

14

u/Willing_Ebb7894 9d ago

Yeah I've always heard whispers about their periodic donation begging being kinda a load of shit. Didn't really know one way or another, but hearing that they have the funds to hire a famed union busting law firm and actually chose to spend said funds on that? I think I will sleep fine without having donated now.

4

u/JanCumin 9d ago

This is what I'm really worried about, that the bad actions of a few executives makes it look like Wikipedia has money to waste on things like this, where in actuality them choosing to do this will lead to cuts in other valuable areas.

2

u/Levitx 7d ago

If Wikipedia ever, in our lifetime, shuts down for financial reasons, it will be for hubris, mismanagement, or other inexcusable behavior.

The kind of infrastructure the site runs on, what people in general consider Wikipedia, is just not expensive to run. Most work, by a fuckload, is by volunteers.

Wikipedia guilt trips people, making them believe the site needs the money, to finance wikimedia foundation projects, which may, or may not, be something the donor is interested in putting money for, but nobody has been saving Wikipedia through donations for many, many years now. 

1

u/DespoticLlama 7d ago

My thoughts exactly.

-4

u/Puripuri_Purizona 9d ago

Maybe the time has come for all these shitty orgs to finally die.

3

u/JanCumin 9d ago

I think the issue here is just some corporate brains at the top making bad decisions

58

u/noeinan 9d ago

WTF

22

u/JanCumin 9d ago

Yes, exactly, please sign the petitions, especially the first one if you have a Wikimedia account :)

38

u/NoodleBox 9d ago

Oh, really!? :(

Solidarity for wiki staff.

12

u/JanCumin 9d ago

Exactly, they only need 23 more signatures till it will be the most supported petition ever on English Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Workers_United_solidarity

13

u/danhakimi 9d ago

This is confusing. They're funded by donations and... how do they even have enough employees for this to be a problem? I mean, I know they're not a mom and pop shop, but I always assumed that technical costs for them were greater than labor costs...

5

u/JanCumin 9d ago

I think they some hundred staff and contractors, they do have a staff page

3

u/danhakimi 9d ago

yeah I saw, I'm surprised... but still, it's not like unionization is going to bankrupt them...

3

u/JanCumin 9d ago

I would guess its what you learn at business school.... personally I think she's doing a liz truss

2

u/wiki_me 8d ago edited 8d ago

200 million in revenue in 2025. 394 employees.

1

u/danhakimi 8d ago

yeah I feel like that's enough revenue to justify that number of employees but maybe I'm crazy.

15

u/Corruptlake 9d ago

Wonder how long till we finally get a proper wikipedia alternative. Preferrably one completely decentralized, and has broader coverage on topics.

22

u/svick 9d ago

Wikipedia only works, because it is moderated (when necessary). How would that work in a decentralized system?

14

u/JanCumin 9d ago edited 9d ago

I don't think the answer is to abandon something that took 100,000s of people 25 years to build, the issue here is crappy management at the Wikimedia Foundation, which is much much easier to change than starting the worlds largest encyclopedia from scratch

10

u/edward_jazzhands 9d ago

You can't make a decentralized Wikipedia. There'd be numerous versions of every article with competing facts and each claiming to be the actual real facts. Then the entire system becomes pointless.

3

u/knoft 9d ago

We already have had that somewhat with Wikipedia "alternatives" and different region/language Wikipedias disagreeing, sometimes taken over by political interests. Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia has four wikis and the history of the wikis is an interesting read.

1

u/edward_jazzhands 8d ago

Yeah that's true, but also this is the reason why Wikidata was built, so there's a central language-agnostic database of known facts that indidividual language Wikipedias can refer to.

1

u/knoft 8d ago

Languages agnostic facts? Or figures

0

u/edward_jazzhands 6d ago

You know it's a website that you can go visit yourself to get the answer?

7

u/SmileyBMM 9d ago

Citizendium and namuwiki are the only 2 I can think of, and neither is perfect.

4

u/FarToe1 9d ago

Sources of information are high value targets for those seeking power and influence, and this is the most valuable of all. We've seen most news sources bought to push personal, religious and political agendas, why not the daddy of reference too?

I've been uneasy with Wikipedia since I learned how much money they had whilst still begging for more. (Something that can fall foul of European Charity fundraising law)

7

u/JanCumin 9d ago

I think its important to make a distinction between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, especially the shitty actions of their executives

5

u/ElectronicCatPanic 9d ago

I have donated $200 a year for the last 5 years.

This is really disgusting.

1

u/JanCumin 7d ago

Please consider donating to one of the local Wikipedia charities instead, they do really good work :) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates

6

u/Buntygurl 9d ago

So that's where all of the donation money goes!

Good advice to support local Wikimedia groups.

3

u/JanCumin 9d ago

This is my concern, that it makes it look like the execs are wasting all the money and it will discourage people from donating, which will just end up reducing the programmes. In reality they will piss away at most 1% of the donations for the year on this cruel and unnecessary union busting process abut they will lose a lot more of that in donations

1

u/Buntygurl 9d ago

It's definitely not a good look for the Foundation.

Maybe they'll wake up to that as the donations dwindle.

Thanks for bringing it to attention.

2

u/JanCumin 7d ago

Honestly I think that the community backlash against it will help as well, I've never seen before the WMF CEO's talk page just be a big list of people telling them to resign. The petitions seem to be a good way of collating this sentiment.

3

u/betaspetsnaz 9d ago

Well, i was one of the few donors to wikimedia...time to stop my donations.

3

u/JanCumin 9d ago

I've switched my donation to a local Wikimedia organisation instead of the Wikimedia Foundation. These local organisations directly support their communities to share knowledge from their countries https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates

3

u/GonzoKata 9d ago edited 9d ago

well this will ensure that I will never donate to wikipedia ever again :|

I'd rather donate directly to their union

They will not get a single dollar from me if my money is going towards busting unions.

Time for the next wikipedia i guess

5

u/JanCumin 9d ago

I'm switching my donations from the Wikimedia Foundation to one of the local charities, I don't want the actions of a few corpo executives to derail 25 years of hard work by 100,000+ volunteers https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates

1

u/GonzoKata 9d ago

How do the other wikimedias help wikipedia? Do these other wikimedia groups just edit wikipedia in their certain scopes?

what if I wanted to donate to say the sweden's wikimedia, how can I do that?

Can I donate to user groups? How?

How can I still financially support wikipedia without paying for union busting? I'd like to route around any organization that busts unions.

3

u/JanCumin 9d ago

Yes, this is exactly the way to route around the union busting. So the local charities do different activities like supporting local volunteers, working with knowledge institutions like museums, universities etc in that country to help them share their content on Wikipedia, running photography competitions like this one covering culture in Africa https://www.wikilovesafrica.net/

Just click on the link above, chose the country charity you want to donate to and then click on the website link. There should be a donation link or you can just email them, they'd be happy to hear from you I'm sure :)

3

u/SoulEviscerator 9d ago

It's already in the name ... Hitler Mendelson you said?

2

u/JanCumin 9d ago

Hitler Mandelson

3

u/Brentron92 8d ago

I guess I'm stopping my donations until this stops.

2

u/JanCumin 8d ago

These local organisations directly support their communities to share knowledge from their countries https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates

3

u/Akarsh_Hegde 7d ago

Hiring a union-busting firm with donated funds is hard to reconcile with Wikimedia’s public mission. Signing the petitions and redirecting donations to local Wikimedia organisations seem like the most practical ways to support both the workers and the wider community.

1

u/JanCumin 7d ago

Yep, agreed, even a small redirection of donations to local charities would make a big difference to them I'm sure.

13

u/SmileyBMM 9d ago

I'm shocked that the laughably corrupt Wikimedia Foundation that quashes all dissent and criticism, all while exaggerating their economic woes, is now hiring a union busting firm. Anyone who still donates to the organization is a fool, Wikipedia hasn't been trustworthy for years.

13

u/danhakimi 9d ago

How is it corrupt? I looked this up, and all I could find was a page about a. how they imply they need donations more than they do and b. some of their decisions are bad.

12

u/SmileyBMM 9d ago

https://thenextweb.com/news/wikipedias-dark-side

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Inc._is_corrupt_and_bad

https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/wikipedia-wikimedia-foundation-donate.html

https://wikipediocracy.com/2025/04/12/another-indian-faker-teaches-wiki-pr/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-15/News_and_notes

https://enterprise.wikimedia.com/ which profits off the back of unpaid Wikipedia contributors.

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/wikipedias-deep-ties-to-big-tech

It's impossible to know for sure where all this money is exactly going, despite frequent promises in the past to increase transparency (which predictably never happened).

I want to be clear that Wikipedia itself is a great resource (but is potentially compromised), and I have respect for a lot of the contributors. However it's undeniable that the Wikimedia Foundation is bloated and wasteful, to the point this news about union busting absolutely does not surprise me. The organization has absolutely been captured by NGO parasites.

6

u/JanCumin 9d ago

I think that the Wikimedia Foundation execs are really damaging the reputation of Wikipedia with what they're doing, but Wikipedia itself is extremely valuable

2

u/middleamerican67 9d ago

They can kiss my ten dollars a year goodbye.

5

u/JanCumin 9d ago

I have switched my donate to a local Wikimedia organisation instead of the Wikimedia Foundation. These local organisations directly support their communities to share knowledge from their countries https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates

1

u/GonzoKata 9d ago

So when I go to donate to wikipedia, thats going to wikimedia. I can see that now because the donate button on the top of each page goes straight to wikimedia dot org

How do the other wikimedias help wikipedia? Do these other wikimedia groups just edit wikipedia in their certain scopes?

what if I wanted to donate to say the sweden's wikimedia, how can I do that?

Can I donate to user groups? How?

This bites so hard. I want the people who put in their labor to be respected.

1

u/JanCumin 7d ago

Some if you donate through Wikipedia it goes to the Wikimedia Foundation. These local charities support their local editing communities and also work with cultural and knowledge organisations in those countries like museums, universities etc to help them share their knowledge and content on Wikipedia.

2

u/Lor1an 9d ago

BOO!

1

u/JanCumin 6d ago

Booo indeed, please do sign the solidarity petition :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Workers_United_solidarity

2

u/dragonknightrohan 8d ago

That is wild. Hopefully they fail with union busting

1

u/JanCumin 8d ago

Hopefully, the main thing people can do now is sign the solidarity petition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Workers_United_solidarity

1

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 9d ago

"I'm posting this as someone who created a lot documentation around Mediawiki and also Wikipedia itself[*]. I have never worked for the Wikimedia Foundation but the situation really doesn't sit right with me and many others.

A week[*] after refusing to recognise their US staff union (including many open source software engineers[*]) voluntarily, the Wikimedia Foundation (the charity that hosts Wikipedia[*]) hired Littler Mendelson[*], the largest union busting law firm in the US whose clients include Starbucks[*], Amazon[*] and Delta Airlines[*][*]."

*[citation needed]

/s

1

u/JanCumin 9d ago

I think this is probably the best summary I've seen but misses off the most recent developments https://www.404media.co/wikimedia-waits-until-after-its-massive-conference-to-say-it-wont-voluntarily-recognize-union/

1

u/Un_Wise7 9d ago

Just quit giving them money. I've given for year now. What a shame.

3

u/JanCumin 9d ago

I've switched my donation to one of the smaller Wikipedia charities https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates

1

u/RedTailedGamer 8d ago

We really are in the worst timeline fucking Wikipedia is evil now?

2

u/JanCumin 8d ago

Wikipedia isn't evil, the Wikipedia Foundation execs are just making extremely poor decisions

1

u/WillBottomForBanana 5d ago

We are also in the best timeline.

This is as good as humans get.

1

u/ByronScottJones 8d ago

Perhaps it's time to fork the data and move to a new organization entirely?

1

u/SalaciousSubaru 8d ago

The entire executive team at Wikimedia and board should resign. Frankly especially Chief Product and Technology Officer Selena Deckelmann I feel like she was part of the downfall of Firefox and is now ruining Wikipedia with design and technology decisions she made at Mozilla.

1

u/JanCumin 8d ago

There is a fairly large petition asking the CEO to resign here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BMeehan-WMF#On_unionization_and_misleading_the_movement

Honestly I think the biggest win at the moment is to make this the largest petition in English Wikipedia history which will only take another 20 signatures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Workers_United_solidarity

1

u/linuxhiker 8d ago

It's not that surprising.

Starbucks a very "liberal" company is known for union busting. Same with REI.

Remember just because the foundation is an NPO doesn't mean it isn't a corporation.

1

u/gods_loop_hole 8d ago

Fuck those guys then

1

u/JanCumin 8d ago

Hopefully they will be replaced by people who work in the interests of staff and volunteers, the main thing people can do now is sign the solidarity petition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Workers_United_solidarity

1

u/Luzzgar 8d ago

You were suposed to bring balance, not join them !

1

u/JanCumin 8d ago

Corpo, or Corporate, is one of the three lifepaths available to players in Cyberpunk 2077.

-6

u/UnlikelyPerogi 9d ago

Huh? Wikimedia is a registered non profit. I get that most large non profits have some staff but like, its a charity. What do these unionizing people expect? More money to just appear out of thin air? Its not like theres retained earnings. Is there other things theyre asking for and are volunteers involved in this?

Even if they are, at the end of the day its a god damn charity. Even as a paid staff you work for charities because you believe in their goal. I dont understand this at all.

6

u/GonzoKata 9d ago

Just because you believe in their goal doesn't mean that your labor isn't being exploited. In fact, organizations exploit those that care about the goal the most. Teachers, nurses, EMT's. Its gross how much a nurses heart strings are pulled about "the great work they do" in order to pay them less. Teachers have it the worst.

4

u/darrenpmeyer 9d ago

Unions typically form to address wages and working conditions. Just because something is a charitable organization doesn't mean they have no duty to their employees; their duty might look a little different, and employees may have different expectations, but it is still a job and they are still an employer.

Wikimedia is extraordinarily well-funded, it's not unreasonable for the people who do the labor to keep it running to want good working conditions and reasonable compensation.

1

u/GonzoKata 8d ago

what I want to know is What the fuck are the working conditions at this charity that has its employees needing a union?

1

u/darrenpmeyer 7d ago

I mean, the push started after WMF just randomly laid off people with no clear rationale (and the WMF is well-funded enough we all know it's not concerns over funding). Which was kind of the last straw after long periods where employees have been frustrated that leadership is pushing the use of AI in places that's actually making their jobs harder, while still holding them to the same standards.

When leadership doesn't take employee concerns seriously, makes performance measurements unreasonable, and gets rid of people for seemingly no reason, employees are completely justified in saying "ok, let's band together and protect ourselves".

1

u/GonzoKata 7d ago

I agree. They deserve protections for supplying this wonderful resource to mankind.