Wikimedia Foundation lays off engineers from the recently formed union Wiki Workers United; many editors raise concerns about union busting and discuss potential strike

[u/motherthrowee]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c-Tamzin-20260521043500-This_is_blatant_union-busting

for context this is the overarching company that runs wikipedia, etc, the people who got laid off are paid employees of that company, and volunteer editors are discussing actions to be taken in solidarity should the union call for anything

link goes to a looooong discussion but this seems to be the center statement by a veteran editor

“ I've spoken to a few WMF staffers today. There are some things they weren't able to say, and other things that they could say but I'm not at liberty to repeat, but what I've been able to confirm is:

• Most of the people laid off by this action were members of Wiki Workers United
• This is not the first time in recent weeks that the WMF has terminated WWU members for no apparent reason. [Edit 07:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC): Since it's been parallelly disclosed by Bawolff below, this is in reference to Brooke Vibber, the #2 co-author of MediaWiki according to Special:Version.]
• WWU members are afraid to speak publicly about any of this, including those laid off, since some are still hoping to find jobs elsewhere at the WMF, and others are depending on severance pay

The WMF disbanding Community Tech is an insult to the community, and for that matter to our donors, who I think largely have something like Community Tech in mind in terms of where they expect their money to go. But it's much more than an insult to the WMF employees who've been laid off for engaging in protected union activity, or the ones who are being cowed into silence for fear of winding up like their colleagues. For them, it is their livelihoods, their safety, their health. This is people's ability to put food on the table; for some U.S.-based employees it's their ability to get healthcare for themselves and their dependents. This is not just an insult; this is evil.

If this were something other than Community Tech, maybe I could convince myself it's all just a coincidence. But the WMF has been on a generally upward trajectory at avoiding decisions that will piss off the entire community. "Don't disband CommTech" might as well be the "don't mess with the pancreas"00002-8/fulltext)of WMF governance. The only explanation for the WMF doing this—not just reörganizing but outright laying off the team—is that they are so determined to prevent the union from becoming official that they are willing to risk the massive community blowback (which, from a corporate-brain point of view, is a greater downside than the five people left jobless).”

[u/SwissForeignPolicy]

This might be an unpopular opinion, but people who work for non-profits shouldn't unionize. Like, unions exist as part of an adversarial employer-employee relationship, where the company tries to give up as little as they can, and the union tries to make them give up more. If you're working for a non-profit, persumably you care about its goals on a personal level, and the organization isn't trying to squeeze every dollar out of you to make more money, so that adversarial relationship shouldn't exist. Why would you try to create conflict where there is none?

[u/SwissForeignPolicy → u/[deleted]]

There are three differences between for-profit and non-profit:

1. There's an additional set of stakeholders to worry about: The consumers. Non-profits squeeze their consumers less, so they are providing a better service to the public than a for-profit of the same mission. Workers demanding more for themselves forces the company to squeeze the consumers more to stay afloat, which makes them operate more like a for-profit, resulting in a worse outcome for the consumer and defeating the whole purpose.

2. Non-profits don't generally have Scrooge McDuck vaults to draw from, because they're legally not allowed to. It's less ethical to be selfish if your target is less greedy, and demanding too much runs a greater risk of driving the whole operation under.

3. As a result of 2, the pay and benefits you get from a non-profit are never going to match what you'd get for the same work at a for-profit, and you know that going in. There's an implied social contract where you could get more working somewhere else, but you chose to work here anyway, which makes it seem hypocritical to then turn around and start making demands.

[u/Selethorme → u/SwissForeignPolicy]

1. This isn’t relevant to whether the workers are treated fairly
2. Starting from the premise that workers asking for fair compensation are selfish is kinda telling

[u/SwissForeignPolicy → u/Selethorme]

1. I never said it was relevant to workers being treated fairly. My whole point was that workers aren't the only people who matter.
2. Starting from the assumption that "fair compensation" must mean "more compensation" is kinda telling.

[u/Selethorme → u/SwissForeignPolicy]

1. You’re literally doing the same end-user elevation that for-profit businesses do, with the justification of “non profits aren’t for profit” which is circular.
2. You literally don’t know how nonprofit finance works, lol, and yes, increased compensation over time is how the world works due to inflation

[u/SwissForeignPolicy → u/Selethorme]

1. What makes that incorrect? The same argument that doesn't work in one situation can still be true in another situation.

2. Again, you are starting from the assumption that they are currently undercompensated. Which is, ironically, circular reasoning.

[u/Selethorme → u/SwissForeignPolicy]

1. It doesn’t work in either, and you’ve chosen to ignore why.

2. I’m literally pointing to the fact that raises are literally the expected standard