Re: WMF executives decision not to voluntarily recognize the union

Well, in that case, I'd heavily advise caution on listening to management,
because they truly have been saying a lot of things that make their
position clear, especially with the email where they indicated they do not
believe a union is the best idea for the movement. I'd recommend people
take a look at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Workers_United/Claims_and_responses
because a lot of what seems reasonable at a glance really isn't.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a firm like Littler Mendelson
providing advice on this front, as they specialize in making it sound like
people have "reasonable concerns" that are incredibly misleading. I admit
to also being a bit hesitant having heard from many current and former
staff that they're explicitly discouraged from posting on venues like
Wikimedia-l and told to run over whatever they say by Comms first.

Or course, you have every right to be for or against the union, Greg. I
hope you can understand my skepticism.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2026, 10:27 a.m. Gregory Varnum via Wikimedia-l <
[email protected]> wrote:

> 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

_______________________________________________
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/2UIRSN4AYCDZUWQDTK5R4T3LBAA3O626/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org