141
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] ceenote@lemmy.world 20 points 20 hours ago

They sound like a well-informed group of people.

[-] statelesz@slrpnk.net 7 points 18 hours ago
[-] khannie@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

Didn't realise they had so many domains. Scamps. Thanks for the heads up.

[-] green_red_black@slrpnk.net 11 points 23 hours ago

Sure the 14 are making a poor judgement but at the end of the day the union passed the vote, so the foundation either honors their own process or give more reason for everyone to leave Wiki sites

[-] Throwaway131447@lemmy.today 19 points 1 day ago

Sounds like 14 mfs needs to get got.

[-] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

Who the fuck were those 14 pricks?

[-] saltesc@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

There's an argument for not-for-profit or low income organisations that they rely heavily on lower wages, volunteering, etc. as excessive employment costs put the organisation in financial jeopardy, thereby people's jobs.

Not sure how Wikipedia is in this situation, but have seen demands of unions lead to redundancies before, simply because revenue was already very thinly stretched. The personal experiences, this has been in education and not-for-profit industries (health, rescue, and homeless support). If donations don't come in well enough, the people the organisation helps suffer first, then it's layoffs, lest the organisation and its support for people may go under.

It can be a very different situation to the usual for-profit groups. People there are meant to understand it isn't about their income, it's about helping others knowing that you're filling a service that states don't help with. If it is difficult, they need to find work elsewhere and not take money that is meant to go toward a cause that helps many.

That's all I can think of for those 14. Otherwise, you're right. They could well be fuckwits holding onto a good thing they got going higher up. I can't think of any other reason based on my experiences.

[-] khannie@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

excessive employment costs put the organisation in financial jeopardy, thereby people's jobs.

I hear ya, however Wikimedia do not give one fuck about paying ridiculous wages to the top brass. Their current CEO is taking in over half a million annually.

[-] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

$500k/year for a CEO is actually really low for a CEO. Hell, there's some engineers and programmers that make more at some companies

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2026
141 points (99.3% liked)

unions

3126 readers
217 users here now

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS