Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
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); etc.
Now, if they had said “We need 200k to send CC photographers to the Olympics”, count me in. That sounds bigger and way more interesting!
Bandwidth is also the sort of thing that gets way cheaper at scale than most people expect. When you are big enough there comes a point where the telecom companies want to connect to you because all their users want to access your website. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot (not all) of Wikimedia's bandwidth is actually free.
No, no high-traffic sites actually uses P2P hosting but that doesn’t mean we’re not at a point where they can. In fact, I’d say the biggest impediment to P2P sites in 2026 is the absolute unit that is advertiser data. We have P2P databases, and round trip on the earth is ~300ms (aka “quick propagation” can be seconds which is more that enough for 98%). We have VPS and serverless. We also have content addressing and symmetric cert verification, but when a site’s “traffic” is P2P you lose visibility on most of it. And can you imagine the nonsense of advertisers adding client side tracking data to the public db so that they can query it? Woof.
Even if true, being the first to do anything is usually an expensive proposition.
> We have P2P databases, and round trip on the earth is ~300ms (aka “quick propagation” can be seconds which is more that enough for 98%)
I dont know how you are defining "p2p database" or which product you mean, but in general distributed p2p solutions where you do not trust the peers cannot propagate information in a single round-trip, or anything even remotely close to that.
> We have VPS and serverless
Neither of these are p2p technologies. They are also a terrible fit for something like Wikipedia.
> We also have content addressing
Sure, but that is like 1% of a solution
> symmetric cert verification
Do you mean mutual TLS? That is indeed a technology that exists, but i dont know how its relavent.
> And can you imagine the nonsense of advertisers adding client side tracking data to the public db so that they can query it?
Which kind of brings up the other flaw with p2p - privacy.
It obviously depends on what technology is chosen, but p2p often has poor privacy properties. Think media companies sending threatening notices to people who download movies. People often look up private things on Wikipedia. Think sexual health topics. Do we really want malicious people to be able to track that?
Wouldn’t that money be spent on lesser known, lesser popular events? Or even projects like photographing the effects of climate change etc - the events that for-profit media is unlikely to cover?
Licenses do matter, just like open source.
Raising funding for Wikipedia, then diverting 90% of the funds for pet projects is dishonest at best, and most likely fraudulent.
The other problem, is that the projects wikimedia foundation has historically funded have a notable political bias, to the point where it has been accused of being a pseudo-PAC.
That being said, we're not just covering the big fancy events. We've done hundreds of events from indigenous festivals to minor league sports to science conferences. We've also donated equipment to wiki communities in Kenya, Ghana, and Benin to photograph their local events and culture, which are very undercovered on-wiki. The big events are what gets a lot of visibility and make the headlines but we do a lot more than that.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiPortraits_by...
They may be noble causes, but it's not how many Wikipedia donors expected their funds to be used, after seeing the donation banners begging for funds to keep Wikipedia running.
According to [0], they intend to spend $18m on community projects total, out of their total $240m FY26-27 budget[1]. $330k of that go to the WikiPortraits project[2].
Almost half of their expenses still go into "keeping Wikipedia up" (+ it's companion projects). I would hardly call that deceptive.
[0]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Regions#Wikimedia_Com...
[1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...
[2]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Co...
That's a bit of a stretch. I couldn't find any up to date information, but for 2024-2025 WMF wrote: "Across the Product & Tech department, we plan on allocating an estimated 50% of our resources to Wiki Experiences, 30% to Signals and Services, 5% to Future Audiences, and the remaining 15% to Product and Engineering Services."[0]
So "keeping Wikipedia up" is a very minor part (15%) of the "Investments in Technology" budget. It receives around 7% (15% of 48%) of the WMF total budget.
That not to say the rest of those "Investments in Technology" is useless. It's just that it's mostly about developing features, like updating the Wikipedia app, or creating functions and Wikipedia Abstract.
[0]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wiki...
At this point, 100% of all new funds raised in the name of Wikipedia are actually being diverted to other projects. It’s incredibly deceptive, borderline fraudulent.
Just learned from a 2 sec llm query that archive.org archives Wikipedia, neat!
Wiki should still receive donations but archive should receive more as a valid backup mechanism (in case the prior goes dark for example).
Those new Pope photos, which were featured on the front page of many language Wikipedias, were viewed 50+ million times in their first month (nice feeling for a first time photographer!)
WikiPortraits photos are CC-BY-SA, which means other (mostly smaller) media outlets can use with attribution (though we’ve seen them mangle that in all sorts of ways, but they are trying). These are generally orgs that cannot afford Getty or other agencies, though we have seen a WikiPortraits photo pop up at CNN Brasil. Fan Instagram accounts also like us.
I personally think it makes the wiki experience more pleasant to have better photos. Here are some before/after: https://commons.gallery/@quirky/beforeafter
Even with the grants, WikiPortraits photographers are all volunteers. It’s what they do in their leisure time. (A number are professional photographers but they are donating their time to this project, or theg donate older photos they took on assignment where they control the rights).
The main FIFA World Cup photographer is a Brooklyn high school teacher by day (also a comedian by night). His World Cup photos have been viewed 500 million times (“what I did l on my summer break”). Wikiphotography, like much of wiki, depends on a base of supercontributors.
Where does the funding go to make educational open content?
WikiPortraits pays for lodging, buying better equipment to lend folks (eg longer lenses so photos are not as grainy), a LOT of parking fee reimbursements, a meal if someone has been shooting for a long day. We also pay honoraria for experienced wiki folks to create Wikidata items or Commons categories behind photogs where necessary (Taking photos fun! Metadata not so fun).
But WikiPortraits travel is generally a mix of people getting there themselves, using airline miles, and external donations (eg not funding from WMF. Some limited exceptions, but we’ve tried to keep that line pretty clear). We used American Airlines miles to get the World Cup photographer to Seattle for that Round of 16 game of US vs Belgium. Wiki ethos vibe.
It’s easy to emphasize glamorous World Cup coverage (which gave us huge stats!). But a lot of the events photographed are things like AAAS and other academic conference, local book festivals, politicians at an event in Adelaide, Indian artists at a fair in Santa Fe. Volunteers grinding away to fill out wiki coverage in areas they are passionate about.
What’s nice is at a time when new editor registrations are declining precipitously (LLMs?), photography has brought in a lot of new volunteers to the Wikiverse. Also it’s a noticeably different population. We are half female vs 15% female for wiki overall, and a lot more diverse, especially in the US (where Black Wikipedians are only .5-1.5% of the Wiki volunteer community). Photography is a fairly immediate high-impact, low-friction way to improve Wikipedia.
LLMs may be able generate a text article. But they don’t (currently) have the ability to rally a community of photographers to go live events and take openly licensed photos for the world.
Also what we appreciate, methodically covering events helps us find coverage gaps on wiki. We just covered a rodeo in Sheridan, Wyoming. The rodeo, despite being around since 1930s, did not have an article. Also more surprising, no article (or Wikidata item) for Indian Relay, a popular Native American horse racing sport where riders go bareback from horse to horse. It’s amazing to watch. Highly recommend. I spent a lot of creating wikidata items and articles for the teams, lead riders and tournaments just so we could match our photos to wiki. Contemporary art, as we discovered with the 2026 Venice Biennale, also has huge gaps of on wiki coverage.
I’m willing to bet that dollar for dollar WikiPortraits may be some of the most effective community grants WMF has given in terms of on-wiki impact. One reason: you can take a single photo and it’s used in 200 wikis.
Remember the WMF doesn’t get involved in editorial content. So the community grants help spur organized efforts like ours to help improve on-wiki content.
We are looking for more volunteers! (Also if you have excess airline miles/hotel points you want to contribute for a good cause).
How does work for major events? I noticed a bunch of the before-after photos were taken at TIFF 2025, where actors were presumably on the red carpet promoting their debuting movie. Did the volunteer get a press pass to be able to be there? Or were they in the 'fan line'?
After two plus years, we have a good sense of what thresholds we need for which events. Bryan Berlin (World Cup photog) spent a LONG time getting qualified for FIFA through local soccer games and up. We took advantage of Thanksgiving weekend when credential demand was slow and sent him to a single game in Florida on the Friday to qualify him in a way that had been hard for us up until that point.
What is still hard for us: Met Gala (a more “known” fashion photographer may help there), Oscars, Golden Globes and F1. F1 much demand from our photogs, but very high and specific bar that is hard for Wiki to thread (photos bought at market rates).
Also some places, like World Economic Forum, have an exclusive with Getty so we are functionally locked out.
The photos work hard to get credentials. A British photog got himself qualified for BAFTA TV awards! A high school girl in Bay Area got herself credentialed for NHL. Olympics are country by country so smaller countries (like Armenia) are sometimes more strategic to credential through.
Working on better pictures of the Pope thanks to a Rome-based fashion photographer who joined us.
Remember, a number of the WikiPortraits photogs are professionals. They are just volunteering their time with us.
But we also help folks who are like “My mom is willing to help buy my first camera camera, what should I get.”
WikiPortraits meets people where they are.
Who you associate with is absolutely up for discussion. And the WMF is OK with hiring staunch Trump defenders.
The union busting firm is not Jones Day. It's Littler Mendelson. Which specializes in union busting. It seems clear that Wikimedia hired them for this.
TFA explicitly states they hired Littler Mendelson for the union and links several sources
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.
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!
(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_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.
Compensation only started catching up in 2021-22 and even then is roughly comparable to what mid-career ICs now earn in the Bay, NYC, and Seattle.
Either they're really bad at picking, or the job is really bad.
Def the latter in the sense that it is a very high stress job with weak compensation and high risk of being targeted.
Also, these are not Silicon Valley numbers. Similar roles as those listed would pay 1.5-2x in the private sector here in the Bay.
Even Wikipedia Foundation's European salaries [0] are well above market rate in the geos listed (Italy, Germany) [1][2].
> They are not doing advanced R&D, or product dev that would justify big numbers or a very specific set of skills
Wikimedia's assets are some of the most heavily visited sites globally and are often a target for attacks (both nation state and independently led).
It takes a nontrivial amount of effort to maintain a platform like Wikimedia's.
[0] - https://www.levels.fyi/companies/wikimedia-foundation/salari...
[1] - https://www.levels.fyi/t/software-engineer/locations/italy
[2] - https://www.levels.fyi/t/software-engineer/locations/germany
https://wikimediaendowment.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/20...
This is in addition to assets of around $300 million held by the Wikimedia Foundation. Form 990:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundat...
For expenses breakdown see the most recent audited accounts:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wiki...
Long-term it'd be best for Wikipedia if it was self-funded through this, like Harvard, for instance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
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 don't romanticize it. Either side of the table can't stop the AI onslaught, they are all out of jobs. Another Wikimedia will rise up from the ashes.
This mindset really baffles me, as a unionized guy with a white collar email job. Don't you, like, want things that your employer doesn't want to give you? Job protection? Better than CoL wage growth? Work from home? Internal job progression? Clear, understandable job factors agreed upon in advance?
The union negotiates for what its members want. There's nothing magical about unions that mean, like, a white collar union is going to be negotiating for all its members to get a new hard hat every year, just because that's what auto worker unions do.
I don’t know what the solution is, we’ve tried a few. Perhaps there are none.
Do you want to keep trying for your union to earn their seat at the table each year proving their worth, or “else”?
There is going to be another meeting where the bosses from each side will sip martinis and introduce their spouses and then they depart the galla in long black limos. It’s been written.
P.S. Your employer, your chosen object of warship, your partner or children, owe you nothing. Gotta find a way to reconcile that.
This governance question doesn't go away if another Wikimedia rises from the ashes. You still will still need a board making decisions, and someone needs to pick the members of the board. Right now there are 8 seats selected by "the community," 7 seats selected by the board, and 1 seat selected by the founder.
I've pledged my $3/5 a few dozen of times over the years, the banners guilted me into it, have you? I am amused by the idea that the thing grew enough to have enough employees to have a union and dysfunctional enough to have an internal dispute. It should be a national treasure on my tax return, or something I don't need to think about, like oxygen.
insane way to measure an organization
What organization and who cares? There are dozens of you?
Now the picture is getting more clear - denying a union is clearly big brother billionaire thinking, e. g. lowering cost while maximizing abuse of workers/employees.
casting the first stone, i see
Silicon Valley: We're making the world a better place by making the most money no matter the consequences.
But this is obscene. I’ve cancelled my donation.
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.
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?
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.
Smart unions are supposed to take business conditions into account. If the business is losing money, the union would recognize that and pull back a bit, because it needs to be a symbiotic relationship to last, not a parasitic one. However, businesses are rarely willing to share honest financial numbers with their unions.
That’s not at all what a union is. Why else would federal workers need their own unions? The point of a union is collective bargaining power for labor. Federal workers have little to no bargaining power when budgets are set by Congress. Especially when they can’t strike.
> Note that government labor regulations are effectively just really one big union (called the government).
No, there's no relation.
Playing devil's advocate:
- Having government functionally like one big union make individual union obsolete.
--
Where will you be without them, you mean. The current trajectory of the US government is the opposite of strengthening the rights of labour.
e.g.
Child labor now outlawed.
There is a minimum wage. (You can argue it is still way to low, but going from zero to some is a huge change)
Some OSHA rules mandate employer provide safety equipment.
The fact that union culture in the USA is broken is not a problem with the idea of unions. It's a problem with the USA.
For now. Many US states are currently trying to roll back these laws though, aren't they?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/22/child-labor-...
https://www.justiceatwork.com/how-are-child-labor-laws-chang...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-several-states-are-pus...
I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been).
> 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.
I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense. Vaccines are a clear public good. Unions can be but aren’t necessarily. Or should I bring up public unions like police unions?
I don’t have a strong position on unions. I don’t care too much one way or the other. Folks should be able to freely organize, business should be able to freely fire. But I think the OP’s claims need more substance. If you look at “performance” well none of the Mag 7 have unions, all have insanely high pay, and great benefits to boot. Would it be better under a union? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
> […]
> I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense.
Then you don't really know history.
You cherry-picked the wrong comment. Vaccines and vaccine adoption has nothing to do with unions nor are they even remotely comparable.
(Though as it goes, I suspect vaccine rollout and universal healthcare does, in fact, owe some of its ability to function to the products of the organised labour movement; national, universal healthcare in the UK literally sprang from the first Labour government)
If you can't understand why I am comparing anti-union with anti-vax, then I think you don't really understand the point I am making about history, or about culture.
???
> 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.
> If you can't understand why I am comparing anti-union with anti-vax, then I think you don't really understand the point I am making about history, or about culture.
If you want to remove vaccines and these analogies that's fine but you're clearly doing something you're claiming you are not.
I am talking there about the relationship of people arguing against a concept with the status quo for that respective concept.
The way those arguments are made is similarly ignorant of history, is the simple point.
It's not that difficult. Really. Other people grasped it.
> The way those arguments are made is similarly ignorant of history, is the simple point.
Yes and that point is rejected by me.
Stuff can go backwards and currently in the USA absolutely is going backwards, at a federal, state and commercial level. Unions, even in their flawed American form, are a force pushing back on that.
You still need them. In just the same way that you still need continued vaccination to protect the gains made by vaccination.
I am obviously not bothered if you reject my points; I am disappointed with the way you argue, though.
It's a loose comparison. I think vaccines are a much more clear public good.
> Stuff can go backwards and currently in the USA absolutely is going backwards, at a federal, state and commercial level. Unions, even in their flawed American form, are a force pushing back on that.
Ok... https://apnews.com/article/trump-chavezderemer-labor-secreta...
> You still need them. In just the same way that you still need continued vaccination to protect the gains made by vaccination.
I'm not sure we need them. I don't need one. But I do need vaccines and society at large to be vaccinated.
In short the picture there is not what you suggest. Unions have notable concerns about the current administration, and about trends in state governments which are going backwards.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/01/us-surge-efforts...
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/trump-workers-rights-wa...
https://cwa-union.org/trumps-anti-worker-record
https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/12/twists-and-turns-t...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/19/how-unions-p...
https://betterinaunion.org/project-2025
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/excl...
Your view doesn't match reality.
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 have lost job security you could have had by falling for Reaganite cartooned claptrap about unions).
But at this point it is not about forward progress, particularly; workers need unions to push back against regressions more than anything else. Those regressions are happening. That is what I have said.
> you claim the current state is the country is regressing
You think it is not?
> Your view doesn't match reality.
Or… Trump misled and lied to underinformed voters? Again? Pretty sure I could find you links from 2024 where he promised not to get the USA into wars and promised to keep prices down. But what's the point?
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.
Here's another:
https://mnaflcio.org/news/trump-champion-workers-his-anti-un...
My view, I think, matches the reality of 2026 pretty well. You have an anti-union government which is committed to rolling back union power and has already done so. I can't change how blue-collar voters acted against their own interests when tempted with populist baubles (which is a time-honoured tradition), but their dubious vote doesn't particularly validate your argument or invalidate mine, does it?
You can think what you like, though.
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.
They all recognise unions and have unionised employees in countries where unions are the default, with the exception of Tesla.
> the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws
To a meaningful extent, especially in 19th century Britain, the concept of the general public is the product of labour organisation, not the source of it.
It's a pretty new concept — the idea that the public have any single collective solidarity or consensus, can be consulted, have the ability to read newspapers etc.
A non-trivial part of that comes from the empowerment of labour, from the creation of commercial schools and universal education (which emerges from the social contract that grew as a result of organised labour interacting with the state etc.
Unions were powerful in the education of adults, they created unified leisure time, they furthered the idea of trade schools, they created a path to politics for the underclass, etc.; I don't think there would have been a general public without labour organisation. Just a rarified wealthy upper class.
Don't do these silly bad faith, straw man characterisations.
I reject the association literally or otherwise.
This is the same reason the government protects unions.
They earn more and are more productive. Here is one Canadian study but I’m sure you can find more if you’re interested.
The thing to understand is that labor law in the US was created to "reduce labor strife." Unions existed before they were recognized as legal. What labor law tries to do is make an orderly process with the goal is no strikes and a mutually agreed-on contract.
The company recognizing the union is the first step towards a contract. Basically it's saying "I understand this organization represents these employees and I should negotiate with it."
So as you can see, they have incredible free speech! They allow just anyone to carry out a street march!
Compared to the US where multiple protesters have been killed on video by ICE this year Germany is a dream of free speech
In no state are any employees compelled to formally join a union. In an American-style “closed shops” in a non-right-to-work state, if you don’t join the union the bargaining agreement can charge nonmembers an agency fee representing most of the dues they would pay as members. Not to mention pressure tactics to join.
Also especially in the trades in major markets unions control apprenticeship programs and hiring halls and make it virtually impossible for nonmembers to get union work, as well as gatekeeping access to apprenticeship programs in the first place.
"For the conversion of his money into capital, therefore, the owner of money must meet in the market with the free labourer, free in the double sense, that as a free man he can dispose of his labour-power as his own commodity, and that on the other hand he has no other commodity for sale, is short of everything necessary for the realisation of his labour-power. "
https://www.propublicaguild.org/updates/propublica-guild-rat...
You mean, like actors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAG-AFTRA
Or teachers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Education_Association
Or service employees? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Employees_Internationa...
Sure, the arguably most successful union in the history of the US, the Screen Actors Guild, is only useful because it kept all of those actors from being worked to death, and it has nothing to do with all of the millions of dollars that its members make yearly.
It’s quite common that that also extends to negotiation on salary bands, and it’s also quite common the company then applies the same salary bands to non union employees also, rather than the norm in tech of individual negotiation. Many people think they’re in the group that is negotiating outlier salaries and would lose from this. However, many people with that viewpoint are also wrong about their position in the salary scale.
Sometimes this extends to promotion criteria and some unions push for tenure or seniority based promotions. This may or may not be better than your individual companies specific combination of merit, nepotism, the political clout of your managers and the business criticality of your department.
One thing that happens in the US that is illegal here is some companies agree to becoming a union shop and make joining the union compulsory.
By federal law, if a company has a union, the union must represent ALL non-management workers, even those who do not pay dues.
This is obviously fucked up. But this has been union law at the NLRB for a long time.
The fair response: a union should only legally be responsible for representing its members. But these sorts of terrible union laws are the consequence of attempting to destroy them since their creation.
And for those of you who think unions are terrible (capitalists and ilk), what we had before was 'firebomb the business or the bosses house', and basically waging war between capitalists and labor. Unions and legal representation WAS the compromise.
Labor history has always been a bloody and murderous affair. Go look up the history of the pinkertons.
This is not true. There can be non-union job classes even if the employer has some unionized employees. Even in different geographic areas you can have one location have class X union and another non-union (eg Starbucks).
What you cannot do, is have a unionized location with union Software Engineer I and non-union Software Engineer I. Sometimes employers try to skirt this and have non-union jobs that are too close to union jobs, and then it's lawsuit time.
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.
There are certainly examples of both social structures being wielded to bad ends, but I don’t see anything unreasonable about supporting them in general. Same presumably would go for unions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aside from general job protection stuff, the general answer would be that they can ensure that some of the productivity gains go to employees rather than employers. Let's say the company has been so much more efficient thanks to AI that they earn an extra 100 million in revenue with the same level of spending. So, the union goes into contract negotiations asking for a 50 million increase in salaries per annum, and employees get part of that windfall.
It's really hard for me to imagine the conjunction of significant disruption from AI and effective union bargaining.
Anyway, I agree with you that simultaneous productivity gains and deskilling as a result of AI efficiency, if it comes to pass, would work against labor power. The claim is that unions would hold no purpose under such an arrangement. I'd say if anything they'd be more important. The question is, would an employee rather have union protections if this comes to pass, or not?
Contract negotiations are back-stopped by strikes. If a union is asking for an extra $50M per year for their members, they’d better have a credible threat of a strike to back that.
I think most every employer would much rather fade a $75M strike expense than agree to the $50M every year expense. It breaks even in only 18 months on a cash basis, plus gives them additional union-undermining value in a very public display.
I... wonder if you don't know what a non-profit corporation is or how they work?
handling a reduction in work is one of the things a union is for
You need to think long and hard about the fact capital reflexively does everything possible to resist or bust unions when these are the same people trying to pound into you that you're supposed to give more for the bottom line, and raises can't do anything but keep up with inflation this year. If they go for the law firm, the money is absolutely there, they just don't want to spend it on you. Heaven forbid.
Honestly, all pretty reasonable demands.
You may unfortunately understand this soon, if the products of the tech industry do what they promise to do. But it will be too late.
Tech workers historically have had it made in terms of compensation and work environment. Additionally good tech workers have historically had more leverage over their employer than an average worker. So it makes sense that many would be reticent to mess with a good thing. But here we are at the dawn of a new era. Nobody has any idea what tech employment will look like in ten or twenty years.
I would happily be in a union in tech. Maybe I wouldn’t if i was making 300k in the Bay Area but I am not.
> [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, a transcript is at 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.
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.
Given that they know the company may invoke NLRB's process and require a second anonymous ballot anyway, can organizers not start with an anonymous one?
So to get a union you first need people to talk to their colleagues, and if the people they're talking to seem agreeable, get them to sign a card saying that they would like to be in a union. Once they have enough of these cards that have been signed by people who have spoken with union representatives and pledged their support for a union, they can go to the company and use the cards as proof that the union has broad support.
The idea that people are compelled to sign union cards is a bit of a fiction. Signing a union card is an act of bravery because it paints a target on your back especially if the union drive fails. It's documentary evidence that you're a troublemaker.
This is classic union busting behavior. Of course they won't say the reason they let the team go was because of unionization efforts because that's illegal. But they certainly will point to vague reasons.
This sort of firing decision is also a key part of why the union started in the first place [2]. Apparently Wikimedia has a bad habit of just letting people go, playing favoritism, and breaking promises to employees.
[1] https://www.heise.de/en/news/Unionization-at-Wikimedia-Commu...
Seems like the solution is to just allow ad-hoc anonymous votes upfront?
I appreciate you walking me through this though!
It's considered perfctly normal for owners of a company to delegate their power and responsibilities to managers, but whenever employees try to delegate things ao tunion 9/10 times the owners scream and cry and allege dark conspiracies.
1) you sign the cards
2) the company alleges that the cards were signed under duress and people didn't actually want to sign. This is a necessary step in order to invoke the NLRB process
3) this puts everything on hold for the months it typically takes for the NLRB to act, allowing the company time to engage in anti-union activities.
If the only reason WMF had to request a formal election was to allow secret ballot, they would not be hiring union busting law firms. The point of such firms is to legally and illegally discourage union membership - the penalties for doing so illegally are comically small.
Companies aren't required to present any evidence other than "we have reason to believe" so it's pretty much a ritual at this point.
The secret balloting process is a second phase activated only if the company alleges that the cards were signed under duress. Wikipedia is saying they believe that people were coerced into signing these cards in order to activate the NLRB process. They have to say that the cards are improper or recognize the union.
As far as i can tell, this is a straight up lie. Union organizers might know, but legally they are required to keep who signs a union card secret.
If voluntary recognition happened, as far as i understand, part of the process would be for a neutral third party to verify the signed statements. So if someone was pressured, the verification person would call them up and ask if they really meant to sign, and they could just say no. [Ianal, this is just what the pro union people are saying on wikipedia]
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?"
What's wrong with outsourcing? That's what we do with all our bad ideas. Need to blow leaves from one side of the street to the other? Get a Mexican to do it. This frees up people to have better ideas, like well written articles that don't have a hundred irrelevant links littering the page.
This is just silly. Management are the most accountable people in any organization. This makes no sense.
In my experience, management rarely has any sort of reverse checks in place. The closest is employee manager feedback. Which this demand
> Guarantee ability to safely express dissent
Makes me think that staff has been trained not to share true feelings on such feedback.
I have never worked a place where management was even remotely held accountable for their decisions, their corruption, their abuse of power or their fecklessness.
Unions now; unions tomorrow; unions forever.
Humans just don't do hierarchy well
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
Definition of oligarchy: like a dictatorship, but with more than one dictator.
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.
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
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).
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_...
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.
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.