Mission-oriented jobs tend to be below-market. Open source, gaming, SpaceX, etc.

Yes nowadays new unions are basically for employers who have a very ideologically liberal workplace - coffee shops, open source, etc

Is that site a joke?

I think that this fundamentally comes from thinking that unions are only there for the worst possible jobs in the worst conditions, or where outright abuse occurs. And also from the (imo incorrect) idea that you should have those bad conditions before organizing.

Unions even the balance of power between the executives and labour at an organization. Even if WMF conditions are perfect and there's never any abuse of power (which seems unlikely) -- you should want a union in place _before_ an org decides to do layoffs, or force a practice on its workers that they don't want.

I worked at a tech company a few years ago and the standard anti-union cliche from execs was "we already treat you well" but then about 20 months later they laid off 2000 people, including folks on parental leave. A bit late to try and organize a union at that point.

(edit: typo fix)

> Right? If your logo[1] is going to be a fist raised in defiance you'd better at least have something you're trying to fight about. And if you're going to brag about succeeding in your vote at least give an idea about WHY you want a union in the first place.

The raised fist is union iconography. It is commonplace among all kinds of trade union, union, and other labor orgs.

And this is one of the things that's really annoying about trying to explain the appeal of unionising. You don't need to have a bad workplace first to have a union.

You can have a good workplace and it's better if you do. The point of the union is to codify structures that empower workers to keep their workplace good and drag it back to being good if problems arise.

This is a solidarity union and therefore the leadership are not paid. They are exist to provide a counterbalance against the management chain and provide a safe avenue for workers to communicate concerns and have them addressed. Notably one where they are on the side of the worker and not the side of the company (HR has its use but it's also often going to side with the company).

The wikimedia union's purpose according to https://wikiworkersunited.org/focus-areas/:

Our international union will officially empower the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) workers to work together with WMF management to address long-standing concerns, including:

- Encouraging transparency and accountability on various issues from WMF leadership toward both the WMF staff and the Wikimedia movement communities

- Ensuring staff are heard and have effective ways to provide input on policy changes or annual planning (ideally while in deliberation and not as post-factum pushback)

- Prevent questionable or unclear hiring, firing, promotion and other HR practices

- Guarantee ability to safely express dissent

- Advocate for mental health support for staff

- Advocate for pay and benefits equity that makes sense to the staff

- Hold management accountable to promises made to staff

Many of the concerns above have been raised by staff repeatedly over several years. Through unionizing, WMF workers can take proactive steps to address them in collaboration with management.

-----

Those are reasonable complaints and a union makes sense to provide a continuous mechanism towards improving on those concerns.

How severe should your workplace grievance be before you’re allowed to decide to protest? Are only coal miners allowed to grouse about their jobs?

Wikipedia has a pretty fat bag. It's not like the devs were peeing in water bottles at their desk...

Yeah, I posted before I saw your comment here but "cosplay" is a good word for it.

That is the sort of thinking that allowed tech companies to offer perks like remote work when labor power was higher, only to yank them away once labor was on the downswing.

[flagged]