Re: WMF executives decision not to voluntarily recognize the union

Dear Greg,

I appreciate you so much!

You are definitely one of the long-time colleagues at Wikimedia that I
really respect. I can also see where this response reflects your many years
of non-profit communication strategy, including advising senior leadership
and the board over the years at the Foundation.

I also think it's really important for all affected workers to have a
chance to speak up. So continue talking, this is important! Unions and
their protection are built on broad and sometimes conflictual consensus
making processes.

But ... and after having talked to several community members, and several
of your colleagues, my ex colleagues.... the conversation has moved from
factual misreading and misrepresentation of the card check process towards
a larger concern.

On the factual matter: there was a semi-secret voting process through two
separate card check sign up drives only visible to a handful of union
facilitators, one by WWU, and the second of which was facilitated by the
national union CWA. Both were legal ways to form a union in the United
States. CWA offered WMF an option for a third party arbitrator to check the
validity of the cards and move the process forward. Notably, at any time,
any covered staff could also, for example, dispute their existing cards and
remove them from the pool of staff supporting a Union.

Moreover, in such a process, WMF’s lawyers could be disputing the Union
formation in private. I find it extremely hard to believe that over 20% of
your US colleagues misread the existing forms twice (well documented on
wiki now), but that is the responsibility of an arbitrator and lawyers to
figure out.

Instead WMF leadership made a choice: to air all of its bad faith
interpretations in public, while justifying sending the petition to an NLRB
election process under a Trump-controlled, pro-employer NLRB
administration. Because the NLRB election is handled by mail, this election
also imposes a physical presence restriction on staff movement for over a
month, in order for them to participate in their labor rights where
normally they would have flexibility of being remote staff in the US
(I documented
this here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Workers_United/Claims_and_responses#Claim:_The_card_check_and_voluntary_recognition_method_of_unionization_is_unusual.>
)

The reason the conversation has sprawled: is that it touches on a larger
pattern of WMF leadership avoiding acknowledgement of the role of labor in
the movement. To be clear, the only reason Wikimedia works is not the
software, the movement's fundraising capacity, or leadership and board
decisions, but an elaborate self-organizing structure of different kinds of
labor in a complex social ecosystem.

The last 6 months of decisions have seeded labor conflicts across the
movement:

   -

   The labor of donors -- Our small donors are not just “giving money” but
   are donating a chunk of their compensation to our cause (many of whom are
   in low income countries, or students or retirees). They are investing their
   labor in our labor. Some donors are withdrawing their contributions based
   on these decisions.
   -

   The labor of staff, who are forming a union, as Jake points out, not
   because they want to fight the organization, but rather want to stay at
   the organization in a healthy and productive way
   <https://medium.com/regarding-wikipedia/how-the-wikimedia-foundations-union-busting-is-textbook-9b5245f6a736>.
   The Union opened the process to be non confrontational, and the Foundation
   is choosing legal advice designed to be confrontational (and defending that
   choice in public).
   -

   The labor of editors, whose adhoc workflows often address critical legal
   compliance and content quality concerns, and need attention from WMF labor
   like community tech.
   -

   The labor of affiliates,  who are sometimes ineffective due to poor
   programmatic support, but typically operate as surprisingly lean and
   impactful organizations advancing our mission.  The recent proposed changes
   to Foundation’s funding framework were done without prior consultation with
   its main stakeholders.
   -

   The labor of committees: PTAC, Affcom and GRDC were sidestepped during
   the recent Community Tech and affiliate funding proposed changes. At the
   same time, the board is proposing a restrictive measure to make their
   committee process less inclusive of all the kinds of labor involved in the
   movement. This is without taking into account the dozens of other
   committees run on volunteer labor to solve Foundation priorities.


Our values, how we make collective decisions, and the value we offer to the
world is based on coordinating across a complex social system, of the
weirdest, most wonderful, and most detail oriented group of humans on the
internet. We are supposed to be fighting for knowledge to be human
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/knowledge-is-human/>, instead we are
fighting ourselves.

This is a choice: foundation leadership has consistently chosen to air
dirty laundry by defending decisions that clearly diverge from movement
values with increasingly corporate-style defenses that doubt workers'
contributions and cherry pick some of the “grossest” (echoing Jimmy)
assumptions we have about each other. It's not a surprise it's become a
sprawling conversation, and for better or worse a persistent and exhaustive
documentary project of epic proportion in our movement (i.e., the second
longest editing community petition!).

Wikipedians, when given poor and clearly evasive communications, do what
they do best: extensive documentation. Of course this is in a way that US
labor journalism typically does not have enough capacity to do (for
example, the press documentation of the labor relations for the International
Rescue Committee Union’s experience
<https://ircworkersunite.org/ircwu-in-the-media/>)

All of this could have been a silent, closed room conflict in a legally and
confidentiality protected arbitration that didn’t invite the editing
community to the conflict.

I am going to place here a document created at the heart of one of our
previous movement crises on what would be a good approach to a
mistake-filled moment like this:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/So_you%27ve_made_a_mistake_and_it%27s_public...


I also am extremely optimistic that everyone involved can choose how to
work better to support our collective labor. I don’t think there are many
malicious intentions in this conversation, but the documented choices we
have seen so far reveal many bad assumptions.


On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 11:27 AM 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/ULKZGQUSH2C7M35DJGYRJ4VC7GGVFAUM/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org