I am one of the staff eligible to vote, and someone who has worked with/for labor movement in all nonprofits jobs over ~15 yrs prior to joining the Foundation ~11 years ago. So I am very much on the record over +25 yrs as supporting unions, and have considerable training on monitoring anti-union tactics, etc.
I do not feel this is the place for staff to speak about our personal opinions on the upcoming vote - and I'm aware many do not feel comfortable discussing this matter in such a public debate channel. However, I do feel compelled to speak up on an assumption presumably being made in part on my behalf about the process. It was always my understanding - and that of other colleagues I have spoken with over the past few months on this topic - that there would be a vote. The pitch to me about the cards - in part - was about the opportunity for a vote - not immediate recognition. I was explicitly told the vote would be a chance to change my mind later if I desired, and that signing a card was necessary to get answers from the organizers to questions. I know people who did not sign cards and would like the chance to show their support. I also know staff who signed cards - but are not yet sure how they intend to vote and want this opportunity to learn more. I just wanted to point out that at least to my knowledge - a fair number of staff (probably not all - but certainly myself included) did not think the cards would mean no vote would happen - or that they were fully endorsing unionization (so much as supporting the discussion happening officially). I cannot speak for every conversation that happened - but again, I was told multiple times by multiple people that the ultimate goal for the cards was to get a vote. Having helped establish dozens of US-based unions during my past work - this all feels pretty routine to me. Even within nonprofit organizations funded by the labor movement, I have not personally experienced a US-based unionization without a vote conducted by the US National Labor Relations Board (although no doubt others have and many examples exist - again - can only speak to my experience). I would encourage people to allow this process to play out before judging things too much. If the staff votes to unionize and the Foundation resists - that is a different discussion. But we are not there yet, and a NLRB overseen and legally prescribed vote seems a reasonable way to safeguard staff’s desired outcome. I think allowing for people directly impacted (like me) to learn more and then engaging in a rather traditional consensus making process in this type of situation to proceed as legally outlined is absolutely within our movement values. As one of those people - I respectfully request that you support my desire and legal right to vote. -greg PS. FWIW - I have not discussed this email with bosses/leadership at the org - and am not in any way trying to speak on behalf of others or any entities involved. I did speak with some other eligible voters to make sure my impressions were not unique - and each encouraged me to send this - but again, speaking only for myself. :) On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 4:27 AM Hannah Clover via Wikimedia-l < [email protected]> wrote: > 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]
_______________________________________________ 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/YACUSZR7UWBQYTDLSYLKZFTVJOKO523K/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
