To anyone who wasn't present, I'd also like to point out what was said at the fireside chat: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Questions_for_Bernadette_Meehan_regarding_the_WMF%27s_recognition_of_Wiki_Works_United.webm
On Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 5:59 p.m. Hannah Clover <[email protected]> wrote: > Incredibly sad to see > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#h-Recent_questions_about_the_Foundation_and_US_unionization_request-20260727160700. > Wikimedia Foundation employees deserve better than a statement that > attempts to mislead them. > https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2026/07/27/statement-cwa-recognition-request/ > is full of unionbusting rhetoric. The WMF should be better than that and > not be using the same tactics as Amazon. > > Only recognizing your employee's right to unionize when you are legally > forced to is not being neutral about unions and it definitely isn't being > supportive. > > I'd like to quote a statement from Femke in the above discussion: > > Today was a day to show trust in staff. Because trust is what we will need > in the years ahead, which are likely going to be as chaotic as the last > couple of years if not more so. The framing in this letter does not > convince me the Foundation leadership is neutral in this matter. A small > example: rather than acknowledging the WWU effort to build a global union > (or network of bargaining units), the text focuses on the CWA, which cannot > represent global staff, seemingly to diminish international support: It > is important to note that the CWA is only seeking to represent a portion of > US-based staff, and there is no global union option due to different labor > laws across countries and jurisdictions. Also note how the text > emphasises the 'portion of', which is technically correct as US labour law > exclude managers, but downplays the role of the union in representing most > workers. > The FAQ emphases what leadership calls 'good working conditions'. The > listing of benefits tries to convince staff that all is well and that > unions might not be necessary. What the text fails to mention is that these > are not contractual and can be changed unilaterally. In tumultuous times, > we need staff that has the security of actual 'secondary labour conditions' > as we call them in the Netherlands. The 'benefits' are especially > questionable when the "generous" 15-day holiday allowance would be illegal > in every single EU country > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_by_country>. > Today was a day to show trust in staff. Instead, we've started a rough > road of persuasion and spin. Fortunately, as a movement, we are > exceptionally well trained to recognise this. I'm confident staff will > prevail. >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/ANFH6XRG7AUTQFOFK5GBY527GVYRFLVY/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
