Re: WMF executives decision not to voluntarily recognize the union

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 wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org

_______________________________________________
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 wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org