Re: [Wikimedia-l] about staff

2016-03-09 Thread Lodewijk
Maybe it is better to take a step back at what we're trying to accomplish
exactly, rather than discuss differences in how the labour market works in
different countries (which is quite interesting in itself, but maybe not
quite well placed on this list).

Lodewijk


On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Thyge  wrote:

> In Denmark, employees are entitled to elect representatives as members of
> the board of directors of incorporated companies with more than 35
> employees. They are elected between the employees, and it is not depending
> on union participation.
>
> Thyge
>
> 2016-03-09 18:22 GMT+01:00 Derek V.Giroulle :
>
> > In belgium three trade unions would at any one time have one or more
> > representatives in any one company depending on the size of the work
> force,
> > some specialised trade unions like the railwaymen  would represent large
> > special interest groups
> > The TU would have their members and the only moment they would compete
> for
> > members is  when they present candidates in social elections
> > Companies that have no work force representation (becaue of their size)
> > would get visits from TU officials if there are problems to discuss those
> > issues with the management, nothing like " recognizing " the unions would
> > unite to represent the workforce.
> > The national railroad company tried to impose such a system and it isn't
> > working ... if the drivers union isn't invited to talks about issues
> > involving their members.. trains are not running ... as happend  nearly 2
> > dozen times last year
> >
> > Derek
> >
> >
> > On 09-03-16 14:50, Risker wrote:
> >
> >> Some historical context may be useful here, Gerard.  The reality is
> that,
> >> while many workplaces aren't unionized in North America, there are also
> >> many workplaces where there is serious competition between two or more
> >> unions to represent the same employees.  In many parts of Canada and the
> >> U.S., the issue of recognition mainly relates to the employer not being
> >> obliged to recognize a specific union that has not received support from
> >> 50% or more of the staff; in fact, in some locations employers may only
> >> recognize unions that receive greater than 50% staff support.
> >>
> >> It may not be something that is commonly seen in Europe, but I
> personally
> >> have observed truly shocking behaviour (threats, harassment, shunning in
> >> the workplace, etc.) on the part of trade unions that are competing to
> >> unionize the same employees.  This is more commonplace when two
> companies
> >> are merging to form a single new company if the employees had different
> >> unions at the predecessor companies.  And in many parts of North
> America,
> >> we have seen companies shut down unionized branches and expand
> >> non-unionized branches.  Less than 12% of the United States workforce is
> >> unionized; it is not as enculturated in the US as it is in Europe.
> >>
> >> None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the Wikimedia Foundation; I
> >> have
> >> no doubt it would follow the applicable legislation should the employees
> >> wish to unionize.
> >>
> >> Risker/Anne
> >>
> >> On 9 March 2016 at 08:12, Gerard Meijssen 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hoi,
> >>> It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade
> union.
> >>> The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may
> >>> be
> >>> cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not
> >>> willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.
> >>>
> >>> A trade union often provides legal aid when necessary and no way in
> hell
> >>> should a company be allowed to interfere in this.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>GerardN
> >>>
> >>> On 9 March 2016 at 13:06, Andy Mabbett 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle <
> derekvgirou...@wikimedia.be>
>  wrote:
> 
>  Wikimedia UK  does have anything to say about unions  its employees
> are
> >
>  free
> 
> > to join a union
> >
>  The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union;
>  but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
> 
>  --
>  Andy Mabbett
>  @pigsonthewing
>  http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> 
>  ___
>  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>  New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
>  
> 
>  ___
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] about staff

2016-03-09 Thread Derek V.Giroulle
In belgium three trade unions would at any one time have one or more 
representatives in any one company depending on the size of the work 
force, some specialised trade unions like the railwaymen  would 
represent large special interest groups
The TU would have their members and the only moment they would compete 
for members is  when they present candidates in social elections
Companies that have no work force representation (becaue of their size) 
would get visits from TU officials if there are problems to discuss 
those issues with the management, nothing like " recognizing " the 
unions would unite to represent the workforce.
The national railroad company tried to impose such a system and it isn't 
working ... if the drivers union isn't invited to talks about issues 
involving their members.. trains are not running ... as happend  nearly 
2 dozen times last year


Derek

On 09-03-16 14:50, Risker wrote:

Some historical context may be useful here, Gerard.  The reality is that,
while many workplaces aren't unionized in North America, there are also
many workplaces where there is serious competition between two or more
unions to represent the same employees.  In many parts of Canada and the
U.S., the issue of recognition mainly relates to the employer not being
obliged to recognize a specific union that has not received support from
50% or more of the staff; in fact, in some locations employers may only
recognize unions that receive greater than 50% staff support.

It may not be something that is commonly seen in Europe, but I personally
have observed truly shocking behaviour (threats, harassment, shunning in
the workplace, etc.) on the part of trade unions that are competing to
unionize the same employees.  This is more commonplace when two companies
are merging to form a single new company if the employees had different
unions at the predecessor companies.  And in many parts of North America,
we have seen companies shut down unionized branches and expand
non-unionized branches.  Less than 12% of the United States workforce is
unionized; it is not as enculturated in the US as it is in Europe.

None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the Wikimedia Foundation; I have
no doubt it would follow the applicable legislation should the employees
wish to unionize.

Risker/Anne

On 9 March 2016 at 08:12, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:


Hoi,
It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade union.
The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may be
cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not
willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.

A trade union often provides legal aid when necessary and no way in hell
should a company be allowed to interfere in this.
Thanks,
   GerardN

On 9 March 2016 at 13:06, Andy Mabbett  wrote:


On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle 
wrote:


Wikimedia UK  does have anything to say about unions  its employees are

free

to join a union

The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union;
but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



--
Kind regards,
*Derek V. Giroulle*
Wikimedia Belgium vzw.
Treasurer
Troonstraat 51 Rue du Trône, BE-1050 Brussels
M: derekvgirou...@wikimedia.be
T: +32 494 134134
F: +32 3666 2700
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] about staff

2016-03-09 Thread Risker
Some historical context may be useful here, Gerard.  The reality is that,
while many workplaces aren't unionized in North America, there are also
many workplaces where there is serious competition between two or more
unions to represent the same employees.  In many parts of Canada and the
U.S., the issue of recognition mainly relates to the employer not being
obliged to recognize a specific union that has not received support from
50% or more of the staff; in fact, in some locations employers may only
recognize unions that receive greater than 50% staff support.

It may not be something that is commonly seen in Europe, but I personally
have observed truly shocking behaviour (threats, harassment, shunning in
the workplace, etc.) on the part of trade unions that are competing to
unionize the same employees.  This is more commonplace when two companies
are merging to form a single new company if the employees had different
unions at the predecessor companies.  And in many parts of North America,
we have seen companies shut down unionized branches and expand
non-unionized branches.  Less than 12% of the United States workforce is
unionized; it is not as enculturated in the US as it is in Europe.

None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the Wikimedia Foundation; I have
no doubt it would follow the applicable legislation should the employees
wish to unionize.

Risker/Anne

On 9 March 2016 at 08:12, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade union.
> The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may be
> cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not
> willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.
>
> A trade union often provides legal aid when necessary and no way in hell
> should a company be allowed to interfere in this.
> Thanks,
>   GerardN
>
> On 9 March 2016 at 13:06, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> > On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Wikimedia UK  does have anything to say about unions  its employees are
> > free
> > > to join a union
> >
> > The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union;
> > but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] about staff

2016-03-09 Thread Chandres Wikipedia

> 
> b) In france , belgium , the netherlands , germany, scandianavian countries, 
> austria even swtizerland   any worker (wage earning)  is free to join a 
> labourunion and about 80% of private sector workers are syndicated , public 
> servants are even over 90% syndicated
> 

I don’t know where this numbers came from, but thew look quite fancy, at least 
for the french-speaking country I know

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?lang=en=385cb975-cc48-415a-8fee-820f170255d7=13
 



Charles
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] about staff

2016-03-09 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
It is a travesty when it is up to an employer to recognise a trade union.
The question is very much what is implied by such a recognition. It may be
cultural but I would consider the WMF seriously flawed when it is not
willing to recognise the right of employees to be organised.

A trade union often provides legal aid when necessary and no way in hell
should a company be allowed to interfere in this.
Thanks,
  GerardN

On 9 March 2016 at 13:06, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle 
> wrote:
>
> > Wikimedia UK  does have anything to say about unions  its employees are
> free
> > to join a union
>
> The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union;
> but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] about staff

2016-03-09 Thread
You can ask the chapters if you want, but I doubt anyone can imagine a
scenario where the answer is going to be anything but yes.

If a chapter or the WMF were (rather riskily) to refuse to officially
recognize an employee's chosen union then processes such as
 apply
and may be able to force recognition. However as employees will have
the right to take an adviser with them to any meeting relating to a
dispute over their own employment, even a small organization like WMUK
that falls outside the legal regulations would find it impossible to
keep union provided advisors out of the loop.

Fae

On 9 March 2016 at 12:06, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle  
> wrote:
>
>> Wikimedia UK  does have anything to say about unions  its employees are free
>> to join a union
>
> The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union;
> but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] about staff

2016-03-09 Thread Andy Mabbett
On 9 March 2016 at 09:50, Derek V.Giroulle  wrote:

> Wikimedia UK  does have anything to say about unions  its employees are free
> to join a union

The issue is not whether anyone "is allowed to join" a trade union;
but whether that trade union is recognised by the employer.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,