[legitster]

17 months of operating expenses are actually not a lot for a foundation. Especially one whose goal is to preserve something for a long horizon.

Unions exist to combat the monopsony power of corporations. Corporations and unions can exist in constant tension with each other because ultimately both are bound by the market of their product.

I don't think the logic holds up when you're talking about foundations or charities. I'm donating to Wikipedia because I want to advance their cause. If the unions goal is to raid donations and get an increasing share, that could potentially go bad.

Worse, the union can sometimes capture an org and begin to exert control of the mission.

Even if you're very pro-union, there is legitimate reason to be hesitant here.

[Epa095]

> If the unions goal is to raid donations and get an increasing share, that could potentially go bad.

Why would you assume that is the unions goal? That the employees of Wikipedia will suddenly have as their purpose to raid donations from the foundation, instead of promoting the values they probably started there for?

Unions gives the employees a voice representing them, and it gives the organisation someone to talk to and negotiate with. This can be highly advantageous to the organisation as well, since when you have someone to negotiate with, and make deals with, it opens up more possibilities. In places with strong functioning unions (e.g. Scandinavia) they can often function as a moderating force, keeping salaries low when times are bad, and an pragmatic partner when things like working times needs to change.

[legitster]

This is a bit of a naive response.

Unfortunately, with the NLRA as it currently exists, it is more or less impossible to form cross-sector unions like they have in Scandinavia. Which is why unions and industry are so hostile in the US in the first place.

If you're paying union dues, I would expect you want your union to fight to keep your job and make you more money above promoting the employer's values

[Jensson]

> In places with strong functioning unions (e.g. Scandinavia) they can often function as a moderating force, keeping salaries low when times are bad

But this isn't a Scandinavian union now, is it? It is an American union with all the problems which comes with that.

[Epa095]

Is there anything particular about Americans which makes them incapable of forming a rational, constructive union?

[wsve]

Non-profit executives are even more capable and better situated to "raid donations" or change the direction of the mission, and can do so a lot easier when there is no organized labor force to push back against it.

[hiddencost]

On the countrary, nonprofits need unions more than for profits. They exploit their workers more. They have fewer resources and exploit their mission to get more work from their workers.

[legitster]

If I'm donating money to fight cancer, and the majority of the money goes to administrative staff, that's inherently a flawed charity. It's exactly what led to the downfall of the Susan G Komen foundation.

There's also a death spiral problem. If donations drop and administrative costs stay the same, that charity's ratings only get worse.

There's a reason most examples of successful non-profit unions all rely on steady streams of government grant funding.

[skywhopper]

What do you think the core purpose of the Wikipedia Foundation is? Do you think the engineers who write the code and operate the site are “administrative staff”?

[appreciatorBus]

If a new software or hardware innovation came along that would allow the engineers to operate the site 2x more efficiently, thus saving the foundation and it's donors a significant amount of money, would the union support it or fight it?

[jp_sc]

Is there any charity (older than five years) where the majority of the money doesn’t go to administrative staff?

[pas]

yes, check program expense ratios

https://www.charitynavigator.org/discover-charities/best-cha...

but see also

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/arent-the-best-charitie...

and

https://www.givewell.org/

[iririririr]

this is all insane. it assumes you want charity forever! the initial assumption is already wrong.

also, back on topic:

Executive Salaries Position Salary (Annual)

Ex-CEO (Katherine Maher) $789,495

COO (Janeen Uzzell) $503,844

CFO (Jaime Villagomez) $386,433

General Counsel (Amanda Keton) $396,514

Current Highest Salaries Position Salary (Annual)

Software Engineering Manager $164,080

Technical Program Manager $159,200

Senior Software Engineer $109,513

Product Designer $95,972

Additional Salary Insights

    The median total compensation for employees at the Wikimedia Foundation is approximately $109,513.

[pas]

did you mean to reply to my comment? if yes, can I ask you to explain what do you mean by assumption? where is that coming from?

regarding WMF (and other non-profits, like Mozilla), this is a well-known phenomenon - regarding C-suite compensation (it's usually about risk aversion, and that the board or whatever foundations have, is also usually sitting on other non-profits, and rarely they optimize by moving to the cheapest place and hiring folks for much cheaper, etc)

[whimsicalism]

Yes, workers in non-profits are status-compensated as well as monetarily compensated. I don't think this is an argument for non-profit unionization.

[throw4847285]

I don't think you've ever met anybody who worked for a non-profit in your life.

[whimsicalism]

both my parents worked for non-profits their entire lives

[wsve]

"status-compensated"?

[whimsicalism]

people enjoy doing high-status things and will trade off pay for status. asking for equal pay as low-status work is essentially asking to have your cake and eat it too

[20after4]

Is working for Wikipedia somehow a higher status job than working for Google?

edit: I'm asking because my 7 year stint as an engineer at Wikipedia hasn't provided me with an endless stream of lucrative job offers.

[whimsicalism]

absolutely and i'm surprised that you don't think so.

e: and to your edit, i'm talking about social/moral status

[komali2]

Your edit is comparing opposites, basically making the ops point for them.

You work at google for money. Money is high status under capitalism.

You work at Wikipedia for status in the traditional sense - you trade capitalist status (the salary) for the higher actual status of working for a non profit.

[harimau777]

I'd love to live in a world where working for a non-profit was high status. Unfortunately that's just not the world we live in. Maybe if you are someone high up at a well known charity, but the bulk of the people keeping non-profits running do not get status from their work.

[wsve]

Uh...

Can you name me a single job where the tradeoff is "You won't get paid much because this position is so respectable"?

There are respectable jobs where you don't get paid much because the area of work simply does not generate much money (charity), or because they're being exploited and guilt tripped into working hard because of their mission (charity), and there are jobs which are respectable primarily because they pay very well...

But there are no jobs where you're "status-compensated", where you are paid less but that's okay, because the job is so respectable so it's okay to pay you less.

[IshKebab]

I agree. For a decade Wikipedia has squandered it's substantial income on frivolous outreach and community projects when they should have been building up a large endowment so that they could be financially independent. They could have amassed a billion dollars by now and not need any donation begging at all.

The fact that they have a couple of hundred million at least is a great thing. (Firing developers isn't of course.)