Jake has covered this again: https://medium.com/regarding-wikipedia/lies-damned-lies-and-union-busting-statements-42254598b6e9
On Sun, Aug 2, 2026, 10:38 p.m. Hannah Clover <[email protected]> wrote: > May I also point out the wonderfully detailed coverage on the French > Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:RAW/2026-08-05/WWU > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2026, 7:53 p.m. James Heilman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It is being brought up that the WMF has brought on the law firm Littler >> Mendelson <https://www.nlrb.gov/case/20-RC-391740> for this case, which >> has been noted to have a history of trying to avoid unionization for their >> corporate clients. >> >> For example this Wired piece says “When you hire Littler Mendelson, it’s >> an indication that you’re prepared to do whatever is necessary to defeat >> the union campaign,” says Logan. “That you’re prepared to play hardball. >> <https://www.wired.com/story/apples-union-busting-campaign-caused-a-bad-fallout/>” >> >> >> If the WMF just wants to make sure staff have the ability to decide >> independently, choosing this law firm may not have been the best choice. >> >> Do we have estimates on timelines and costs? Best >> James >> >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 12:04 PM James Heilman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Jimbo, that makes complete sense and also based on that agree a >>> secret vote is best :-) >>> >>> J >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 5:41 PM Jimmy Wales <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >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? >>>> >>>> Hi James, this was a question that I had as well, and so I looked into >>>> it and thought about it. One of the problems with the process so far is >>>> that it was >>>> not secret and we have heard from some staff members that they felt >>>> pressured because the organizers would know how they decided. That isn't a >>>> great process and it goes against our movement's values quite badly to have >>>> people in a situation where they are pressured into something one way or >>>> the other. >>>> >>>> It's pretty easy to see the problem if we imagine it in the other >>>> direction - imagine some company asking staff to sign pledge cards not to >>>> join a union, and keeping track of who did or didn't in order to put >>>> pressure on those who didn't. Gross. It doesn't make it better for it to >>>> be the other way around in my own personal view. >>>> >>>> I want a process where staff are safe to deliberate in the privacy of >>>> their own minds and make the decision based on all the available evidence >>>> that makes the most sense to them. So I don't think insisting on a proper >>>> vote is process for the sake of process and I say that with my own estimate >>>> that the staff will vote to support unionization. I think we'll be in a >>>> better place if it's really clear - a clean and clear choice with no chance >>>> of pressure. >>>> >>>> In terms of time, energy, and money - I don't think it should take very >>>> long and again speaking only for myself I hope we get it done as quickly >>>> and efficiently as we can and I hope that everyone - staff, management, >>>> board, and community can come together to celebrate the outcome. I know I >>>> will. >>>> >>>> --Jimbo >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> James Heilman >>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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/NONO7BI7IGNIX43YUOOXBU4B67GOEYI6/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
