Hey Lodewijk, I'm definetly talking about the legal concept of a union yeah (which triggers a lot of legal protections which, at least in the US, are somewhat assumed when people talk about organizing internally). I do think there are other options (both formal and informal) which is what I was referring to in the "There are other options I imagine" bit. As one example the staff asked for at least one non c-level staff member, chosen by the staff, to be on the ED search team and the board has suggested that would be accepted (Obviously it isn't done yet but it was acknowledged as a good idea in an all staff email). I think that's the first example of a more formal 'representation' for non c-level staff that I've seen in the almost 6 years I've been in WMF. Informally, of course, staff have been organizing over the past couple months at different levels trying to help us through difficult times.
[I should point out that I actually think our c-levels have been, and are, traditionally very good at representing the needs of the staff as a whole however having a lower level staff member representative, especially in times like this, is still very useful both for appearances/trust and for a different perspective then someone who would be a direct report] James On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote: > Hi James, > > just to understand correctly: are you talking only about the legal concept > of a 'union' or also about all informal structures where the wmf staff > could somehow influence how things go? I mean for example, I could imagine > that in an organisation with more than 100 people, a representation of > sorts outside the usual hierarchy might be imaginable and potentially > beneficial. That representation could possibly be to the board, to the > C-team or otherwise. Or are such structures already in existance (have been > in existance)? > > Lodewijk > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:51 PM, James Alexander <jameso...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > A traditional union is also difficult, honestly, because of the nature of > > the WMF as an incredibly global organization. We are a huge mix of staff > in > > SF from the US, staff in SF on Visas (I don't know if this matters), Full > > Time Equivalent contractors outside the US (and numerous different ways > to > > do that os that it's better for the staff member such as being a 'vender' > > of a sole company etc), temporary contractors and more. I am not perfect > at > > Labour law but I'm fairly certainly not all of those can actually > unionize > > together officially and so no matter what we do a huge portion of the > force > > would be outside of a union and not get the legal protections that > > provides. There are other options I imagine, and people are looking into > > it, but sadly unionization laws weren't really written with the idea of > us > > in mind. > > > > Now that said I'm not 100% sure a union would really be the most > beneficial > > thing for the org. I'm just not sure they would be able to fix many of > our > > issues while at the same time probably adding some of their own. They can > > be hugely beneficial when used in the right place but I'm not sure this > is > > one of those (they also take a long time to set up and so would not > really > > help for the specific, current, issues). Of course as a manager I don't > > have a vote (and won't be protected) anyway if we go down that route so > my > > opinion is mostly academic. > > > > James > > User:Jamesofur > > [Manager, Trust & Safety, WMF] > > > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen < > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hoi, > > > That would not be a bad idea in and of itself. However, the kind of > > > troubles are not necessarily the kind where a Union has its experience. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > On 5 March 2016 at 20:45, Gordon Joly <gordon.j...@pobox.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > > > > Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia > > > Foundation, > > > > > they are not even represented. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then they should unionise? > > > > > > > > Gordo > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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, > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
