Another informative comment from Jbernick98: "As a U.S. trained labor lawyer and past organizer with WWU, this statement, alongside the WMF’s public facing community post reek of union-busting disinformation. What’s critical for the community to know is that a supermajority of the workers already did vote by signing a card. This “extra step” is just a delay tactic that employers are advised to do when they don’t want a union. They are doing the same thing in the UK as well. These WMF workers have already been extremely brave by expressly affirming their commitment to a union. Years of efforts to get this accomplished. This is not some rash decision by them. Moreover, the community supports their union too! It literally makes no sense as to why WMF thought this was the right decision here in this critical moment. Finally, as a general reminder of the lack of good faith that was demonstrated by WMF here, there was a legal process for WMF, offered by the union, that intentionally avoided delay and going through the Trump administration. It is a very well-trodden path which includes a third-party arbitration process to verify the integrity of the signed members. Again, I believe this demonstrates a willful attempt to ignore the supermajority of their workers’ desires and, worse, causes a further erosion of trust and goodwill between WMF management and their staff going forward."
I really am incredibly disappointed that this is the battle the Wikimedia Foundation has decided to fight. I don't think this decision follows the ethics behind what makes the movement what it is. On Mon, Jul 27, 2026, 6:03 p.m. Hannah Clover <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/HZ4DCW4PMPFZAPVCB5FFP4PLU2V3BMNP/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
