But Mike if we already have a "supermajority of the workers already did vote by signing a card"... why is additional process required for processes sake? How is this not a waste of time, energy, and money to result at an already clear outcome?
As someone who was around during a time of extreme secrecy at the WMF, staff definitely need and deserve further protections and involvement in decision making. We do not want something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(search_engine) to happen again (it was a problem of development in secret rather than the idea itself). We are a movement that values transparency, yet recently have seen the WMF remove Bluerasberry from the election ballot for his calls for the WMF to live up to this value. Best, James On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 11:22 PM Mike Peel via Wikimedia-l < [email protected]> wrote: > I hear the recording very differently than how you are portraying this > here. Listen to what Bernadette says in the recording. There's a process > that needs to happen, and that is exactly what Bernadette was > explaining. "If the decision is to have a union, then there will be a > union." > > We're all familiar with going through decision-making processes - they > are often very bureaucratic on the Wikimedia projects, but we respect > the process, and we don't like to see people taking shortcuts while the > discussions are happening. Give the process time here, and let's make > sure that it results in the best outcome for everyone in the long term. > > Thanks, > Mike > > On 27/07/2026 23:09, Hannah Clover via Wikimedia-l wrote: > > 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] <mailto:[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 > < > 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] > > <mailto:[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 > < > 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/ > < > 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] > > _______________________________________________ > 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/7BRYNOFCYXWLP4OJOGXJLTCCTYCCNPVC/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
_______________________________________________ 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/ZODW32KV2RLSXIKY7LDD37FMSEMXE44X/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
