The Wikimedia Foundation waited until immediately after its largest annual conference to say it wouldn’t voluntarily recognize its workers’ union.
Last week, Wiki Workers United, which is organized through the Communication Workers Union and represents U.S. workers at the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, requested voluntary recognition of their union. Wiki Workers United said that it had secured a “supermajority of union-eligible workers who have signed union authorization cards.” A group of more than 1,100 Wikipedia editors have also signed a letter of support for the union.
On Monday, just days after the massive Wikimania Conference concluded in Paris, the Wikimedia Foundation announced it would not voluntarily recognize the union and said the union would have to conduct a vote as overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.
You must log in or register to comment.
Not a Wikipedia link, but we’re allowing because it’s important to the existence of Wikipedia
For wikipedia editors, there is an english wikipedia petition with 1200+ signatures going around to signal solidarity with the workers. And signal preparedness to strike from editing if Wikimedia foundation does not resolve this.
Well guess I’m not going to be donating to wikipedia next time they have a funding drive.
You should write them a note explaining why, otherwise boycotting is a really noisy signal
Good call sent them an email
the Wikimedia Foundation announced it would not voluntarily recognize the union and said the union would have to conduct a vote as overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.
If the union is wanted by a supermajority of workers, isn’t the vote a foregone conclusion? What is the WF getting by making them jump through that hoop, other than bad optics?
As stated, the decision to unionize belongs to staff. The Foundation’s responsibility is to ensure that they can make their own choice freely. So that every eligible employee has an equal voice, we believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward. This process protects individual choice and ensures that any outcome reflects the collective will of those eligible to participate.
this is their rhetoric. it seems they don’t like unions and are calling the bluff.
They also say:
There are also different implications and requirements for union recognition. For example, in the UK, staff members can individually decide whether to join the union or not, whereas in the United States all union eligible staff would be covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and in many states it is possible that all union eligible staff may be required to pay union fees, even if they choose not to participate in signing cards or voting.
That feels like it couldn’t possibly be true, but if it is that honestly seems like a fairly good justification for letting the union process play out without managerial interference.
What’s the bluff?
the union’s statement that it has a supermajority
Why are Wikimedia workers unionizing? I was expecting a non-profit to be on the less greedy end of the spectrum
Knowing people who’ve worked for non-profits there’s a lot of horror stories out there. When the work is important and money is scarce you get a lot of shitty behavior. But also just in general no big workplace is going to be free of terrible bosses
Allegedly they fire and bully the employees a lot. Recently they fired the entire team that was dealing with the “Community Wishlist”, the most direct way WP editors had to make requests for technical improvements and tools to WMF.
Good article on why nonprofit workers need unions, too
Doesn’t have to be voluntarily.
Maybe the press release came out after Wikimania, but it was known to the relevant staff members at Wikimania.
I’m not on the board or the staff of any Wikimedia organisation, but at Wikimania one of the Union organisers told me in the presence of a board member that the board had requested the formal vote, and that he considered it a delaying tactic. The board member later told me that it’s not that simple, that the board isn’t basically anti-union, but that they’re following process, and that it’s complicated because there are some employees that are directly employed by the foundation in the USA, and others that are employed under local contracts in various other countries, through an agency.
We’re following process, has got to be one of the least convincing excuses I’ve heard
