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 [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]
_______________________________________________ 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 [email protected]
