> Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is some paid shill.
Whether it's true or not, making dubious arguments from a relatively new online account is actually indistinguishable from trolling. Your replies are not helping the matter.
They followed the process for forming a union in the US.
The claim that the Foundation totally supports the right to unionize but wants to hold a secret election would be a lot more credible if this happened before the workers had a supermajority (!) of signatures collected.
You need to be more specific than that if you want to convince people. As far as I can tell, the title is factually correct; if it's not, I'd like to hear your argument.
Given your other, completely insane comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49143931
I am inclined to assume that you are paid to oppose unions online.
Also your recent comment history consists entirely of angry contrarianism.
GP posting account is 4 months old, 40 karma. Recently became active.
Check comment history. Does not seem to engage in productive dialogue.
Imagine seeing a comment you disagree with and find the urge to dig into someone's history and try to tar and feather them. Do better.
Insane? Please stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. Disagreement is not insane.
Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is some paid shill. Like... really? Hilarious. Grow up.
> Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is some paid shill.
Whether it's true or not, making dubious arguments from a relatively new online account is actually indistinguishable from trolling. Your replies are not helping the matter.
Can you provide your view of the events, then?
Note that I know nothing about the topic but the article, but the article says:
> [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward.
Honestly, that was the point where I stopped reading and hid this story.
They used a non-secret election! Fuck them tbh. Jimmy Wales is entirely right here.
They followed the process for forming a union in the US.
The claim that the Foundation totally supports the right to unionize but wants to hold a secret election would be a lot more credible if this happened before the workers had a supermajority (!) of signatures collected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check
3 replies →
See, what you are missing is the games that would be played if they did a secret election.
"Can you prove that only employees voted in this?" "Can you prove there was no ballot stuffing? "
I am not generally pro-union, I believe it has it's place but have also seen downsides but I have seen these games played out before.
Read the post.
It's all fear mongering around a very balanced response from the WMF.
Could they engage in union-busting? Sure. Did they? No.
The article appeared to state both the facts and the assumptions being made off of them pretty clearly.
[flagged]
You need to be more specific than that if you want to convince people. As far as I can tell, the title is factually correct; if it's not, I'd like to hear your argument.
Both halves of the title are true statements.
1 reply →