Jump to content
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

2026 recognize Wiki Workers United petition

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Other languages:

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (BoT) has been silent about the recent requests for voluntary recognition of a union (Wiki Workers United) submitted by WMF staff in the US and the UK (via its employer of record). The CEO has declined voluntary recognition in both cases.

In 2021, the BoT ratified the Wikimedia Human Rights Policy, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which section 23 includes the freedom to join unions.

The Board of Trustees should instruct the CEO to voluntarily recognize the union without delay and begin bargaining in good faith.

To sign, type four tildes (# ~~~~) on a new line at the bottom of the signature section. This will automatically add your username and a datestamp.

Click here to sign

Signatures

[edit ]
  1. --Shushugah (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  2. If a supermajority of workers have signed the card, there's nothing else for the WMF to do besides recognize and begin bargaining. If the workers are unhappy with their union, they can change or remove the union. The Board should require the WMF to recognize the union. Levivich (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  3. I agree with those who think this is an appropriate decision for the board to take; that is it does not overstep in my opinion into most operational areas which must be the decision of the CEO. It's appropriate because unions are absolutely compatiable with the values of our work. Or to put it another way using the words of Bernadette, "standing still is not an option... Our challenge is to protect what makes our projects extraordinary while ensuring they adapt and thrive in a fundamentally different world... Our principles are not barriers to change. They are the foundation that allow us to change without losing who we are." Here the board has a chance to model that by its actions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  4. * Pppery * in solidarity 00:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  5. Absolutely. Le Loy (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  6. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 01:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  7. Nemoralis (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  8. Denying voluntary recognition to unionizing employees is a betrayal of our values and a waste of our resources. asilvering (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  9. You are not a corporation. Your duty is to the community, not to shareholders. 1something (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  10. MBAB (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  11. Stop the WP:STONEWALLING, do the right thing, and save everyone the time and energy. nil nz 01:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  12. Jianhui67 talk ★contribs 01:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  13. Funcrunch (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  14. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  15. Guy Macon (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  16. The recent communication by the Wikimedia Foundation on the subject does nothing to reassure me, and is full of empty prose and canned union-busting tactics. It is baffling that they can at one point pretend that Foundation leadership respects the right of staff to unionize, if they choose to do so, and then follow-up by claiming that some staff in support of the union are confused by the unionization process, taking their agency away to justify opposing union efforts. With that context, their goal being stated as being to ensure that everyone can make their own decision in an informed and civil environment only makes me wonder how hard they'll go on anti-union propaganda, as they are pretty explicitly laying the groundwork for that here. Chaotic Enby (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  17. GrayStorm (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  18. Rexogamer (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  19. what do you get from not recognising the union? ltbdl (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  20. To sign, type # ~~~~ at the bottom after clicking this. After that please also sign the two petitions: (English Wikipedia • Meta-Wiki). 🇵🇭 Omegarightarrow (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  21. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗪︎) 04:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  22. ‍—‍a smart kitten [meow] 06:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  23. LightNightLights (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  24. In individual manager–employee negotiations, there is a power imbalance, a bit like the power imbalance between police and individual detainees in a democracy. The official WMF refusal is a bit like police refusing the right of detainees to consult their lawyers because the detainees "have felt pressured to consult a lawyer and are confused by the legal process" and have "misunderstood what lawyers can do for prisoners around the world". Boud (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  25. Shameful that the execs decided to draw out the inevitable to scare others from unionising. stjn [ru] 08:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  26. Unions are a basic right, and necessary for defending the workers rights Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (Reden) 09:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  27. — Jules* talk 09:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  28. WMF management's refusal to swiftly recognise the union is damaging to not only their relationship with their workers but with the community as well. The decision to engage in what appear to be union-busting tactics and rhetoric do not inspire confidence in the new leadership. Voluntary recognition is the best way to rebuild trust, and the longer it takes to do that, the more trust is going to break down. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  29. David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  30. Lily Scalisty (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  31. sad and disgraceful state of affairs. Tmv23 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  32. Prismdragon9 (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  33. Truly shameful, can only assume management has lost all perspective. Executives probably think what they're doing is in the interest of the WMF (and with some tortured reasoning, the movement), and dismiss others' opinions as those of people ignorant of making difficult decisions, and I guess union-busting is the norm in Silicon Valley. It's difficult to articulate just how antithetical this is to the values of the movement. Kowal2701 (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  34. NDG (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  35. Chaddy (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  36. AtUkr (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  37. Chief335 (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  38. --Andreas JN 466 14:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  39. Sukkoria (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  40. Sadads (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  41. If the majority of eligible staff want this, then WMF should respect this. Bawolff (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  42. This is the Board's opportunity to rescue the exec team from a disastrous course of action that has already brought both Foundation–staff and Foundation–community relations to their lowest point in years, with every indication that things will worsen further still and progress into permanently damaging Foundation–donor relations as well. The WMF is nothing without its good name, and if it gains a reputation as an anti-union workplace at odds with its own volunteers, that damage could take years to reverse. -- Tamzin [​cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  43. The vast majority of Wikimedia's workforce has made it clear that they wish to be unionized; that wish cannot be trampled. - Royz-vi Tsibele 16:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  44. "You are not a corporation. Your duty is to the community, not to shareholders". Seconded. Wanwa (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  45. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  46. CoconutOctopus talk 17:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  47. ShadowBallX (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  48. Union busting is not aligned with our values and wastes the most valuable resources of the Wikimedia Foundation: staff expertise, donor funds, and editor time. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  49. Betseg (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  50. STRIKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE...! ~2026-41891-30 (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  51. I would like like WMF to disclose how much donor money is expected to be spent on legal fees as a result of not recognising the UK and US unions. As a donor, I am deeply disappointed. Nhakama (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    @Nhakama, @Raphrc, & any other donors signing this: I think it would be great if you could include the transaction IDs for your donations, to emphasize the real cost of the WMF's strategy here. These should be in an email with the subject "A record of your support for Wikipedia", and should look like CNTCT-12345678. -- Tamzin [​cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 23:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  52. WMF should disclose how much donor money already has and will be spent on legal fees as a result of not immediately recognizing the UK and US unions. As a donor I feel my money has been misused and am deeply disappointed. Raphrc (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  53. Cynthia Muldoon (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  54. − Pintoch (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  55. NMaia (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  56. Akosiaris (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  57. Clovermoss (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  58. EBFn (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  59. Bgvaughan (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  60. JeffreyYasskin (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  61. Graham Clark (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  62. Dang-r-us (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  63. Virtual Adept (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC-7)
  64. Time to put into practice the values that the WMF always preaches, otherwise they mean nothing. Legoktm (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  65. Durka42 (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  66. This would help the community regain trust in the BoT if they take the action requested in the petition. I'll let my words to Bernadette Meehan at the fireside chat also speak for me here ("Why not today?") Abzeronow (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  67. -stk (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  68. Jneubert (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  69. Papuass (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  70. The only legitimate reason for not voluntarily recognising union representation would be a substantial demarcation dispute, which I don't see happening here. WMF should voluntarily recognise union representation and get on with good faith bargaining. TarnishedPath talk 06:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  71. --Ameisenigel (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  72. Twolnszq (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  73. TomJB1 (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  74. --Sinkra (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  75. --MGChecker (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  76. Agree with User:Levivich. The union has a super majority. The WMF should not waste the time and energy of our movement fighting it. We as a movement have bigger issues, like falling readership and editor numbers, that need this energy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    1. Per Jimmy Wales the goal of the WMF is to give staff a private vote on if they want a union (while the cards are public). That no one is fighting the union. He also says the cost of this is not that significant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
      However seeing that they hired en:Littler Mendelson I am not sure what to think... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  77. If the Foundation supports the worker's rights to unionise, it's time to prove that with actions. The Board needs to stop the leadership wasting donor money in legal fees continuing to fight this thing they supposedly support. --Lcawte (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  78. TMg 08:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  79. Krabina (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  80. Don't waste donated money or peoples health! Listen to your workers and the community - and recognize the union, in line with the Movements values. In solidarity with the WWU~, AHendriksen-collecties (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  81. Richard Macduff 11:15 CET, 29 July 2026
  82. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  83. Husky (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  84. disappointing behaviour, recognize the union already! BetaReticuli (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  85. OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk). I support Wiki Workers United 10:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  86. disappointing approach from wmf, I am fully expecting the BoT to intervene and support unionisation now Lajmmoore (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  87. Whether our workplaces are unionised is a question that goes to the heart of our values. It's very damaging to the reputation of the whole Wikimedia movement if there is this resistance. I would like to see more about who exactly is opposing union recognition; are there named individuals who can answer for these decisions? MartinPoulter (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  88. Brunnaiz (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  89. NikosLikomitros (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  90. Alybnp (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  91. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  92. Deeply disappointed in both this decision and the timing of it, clearly deliberately designed to avoid backlash at Wikimania. For a movement at the heart of democracy and transparency, workers deserve better. user:Octavosaurus
  93. Lovemedead (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  94. Pepe piton (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  95. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    Never thought I'd share this video on Meta (or any WMF project), but union busting is a real thing. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  96. Capucine-Marin Dubroca-Voisin (talk), on my personal belief and not representing Wikimedia Europe.
  97. I'm expressing how disappointed I am by this situation on here in part because I spoke to several WMF staff at Wikimania who told me they felt their job was at risk if they showed support for unionisation. I think this feels so bad because Wikimedia is a fundamentally collectivist project and community. We help each other because that who we are and this approach goes against our shared core values. I hope this will be corrected as soon as possible to help repair the reputational damage this decision has caused within the community. John Cummings (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  98. Mahir256 (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  99. Hypsibius (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  100. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  101. Poslovitch (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  102. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  103. I would sign for the foundation becoming a cooperative with every worker equal rights and duties. Sustaining a union is a no brainer. --Psychoslave (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  104. Красный wanna talk? 16:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  105. Egezort (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  106. --Ernalve (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  107. Sleepytimecat (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  108. Celinea33 (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  109. BiblioJu (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  110. AndrewTavis (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  111. --Don-kun (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  112. Anass Sedrati (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  113. --Hogü-456 (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  114. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  115. --Ita140188 (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  116. -- I strongly support this and hereby add my voice in support of the voluntary recognition of Wiki Workers United. The long silence is itself a choice. It is a signal that our human rights commitments apply selectively, not to the staff who work day and night to see this movement go on daily and also attend to volunteers globally. Our movement is built on openness and shared governance and we have challenged the world to live this motive. It will not be fair to ask this of the world while denying it on our own staff. Strong Support. Dnshitobu (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  117. AdrianUei (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  118. InfernoHues (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  119. Signing as a U.S.-based Wikipedian & union member, as well as a sometime donor who doesn't think the WMF should waste resources on opposing the desires of its workers. Hatman31 (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  120. Donald Albury (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  121. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  122. Iam-py-test (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  123. MEN KISSING (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  124. I'm with Psychoslave: a cooperative would be a natural fit for our movement. Of course, that would be a major change at this point; conversely, the establishment of a worker's union would be considerably simpler, and IMHO recognizing the representation request already signed by a supermajority of employees is the least the WMF should do — if anything, it should be actively encouraging it. Waldyrious (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  125. The Wikimania incident speaks by itself. --Paloi Sciurala (talk|contribs) 10:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  126. Pierre Bon-Bon (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  127. The following usernames (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  128. M0tty (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  129. signed, Rosguill talk 15:08, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  130. Strongly support. Recognition of unions is fundamental to ethical employment. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  131. Nebman227 (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  132. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  133. TheBritinator (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  134. Ixtal (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  135. In solidarity, always —ClaudineChionh (she/her · email · w:en) 00:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  136. --FreCha (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  137. Yeah, and even more considering the non-reply below. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 05:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  138. EriedgenArc (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  139. Waxworker (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  140. Mox Eden (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  141. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  142. Rand Freeman talk ⬩ stalk 03:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  143. In my view, as typically Swedish as it is, WMF's behaviour here is outright morally unacceptable, and unambiguously so. –Maltazarian ᚾparley ∨investigateᛅ11:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  144. Nivopol (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  145. The union must have recognition and representation. CastleFort1 (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  146. Not only must those in charge immediately recognize the union, but the individuals who played a key role in the refusal must leave at once! You are not part of our community or our project. Anyone who treats employees this way does not belong here. Get out! And you’d best take the entire board with you! I am so sick of all this by now. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  147. Solidarity forever. I will not make another donation until the union is recognized. SnoopJeDi (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  148. DraconicDark (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  149. Oneiros (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  150. It is appalling that the WMF is wasting donor money on lawyers known for union-busting: [1]. The Board's job is to stop nonsense like that and make sure the WMF gets on with its mission instead of behaving like it has been taken over by an evil tech company. Kusma (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  151. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  152. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  153. 123957a (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  154. Graham11 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  155. GrandEscogriffe (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  156. Mir Novov (contribs | talk) 09:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  157. Declamados (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  158. Workers have rights Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  159. Vanadio Scaraf (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  160. Fnordson (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  161. Shame on the Board and the Foundation. Scabby the rat would be proud. James (talk /contribs ) 13:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
    Kinda what I asked for, too... ~2026-42869-69 (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  162. Shame on the Board. Full solidarity to workers. Lepticed7 (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  163. OutsideNormality (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  164. Solwève (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  165. Solidarity with WMF employees seeking to unionize. It is baffling that the WMF has decided to go this route. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  166. Per my own previous statements. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  167. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  168. Absurd. Outrageous. Appalling. Chorchapu (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  169. Stop lying to the community. If the Foundation truly does support unionization, it would have recognized WWU already. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  170. Blablubbs (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  171. Licjar Xeymelloz (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  172. Laura240406 (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  173. Nettrom (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  174. The gall of Jimbo to say he is simply concerned about making sure workers are not pressured when they vote, while hiring a notorious union busting law firm, is shocking. StereoFolic (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  175. Rd.chrxlr (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  176. This is a horrible decision and blatant union busting, solidarity forever! Reboot01 (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  177. kdh8219 (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  178. MolecularPilot (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  179. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  180. This is disappointing to see. Epicgenius (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  181. ~2026-42822-07 (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  182. Harimauhobbes (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  183. TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  184. Honestly to some extent not at all surprise on such a turn of development, good people of civilization must stand united in opposing such appalling conduct revealed now that parts of authoritative decision-making staffs are openly and systematically implementing—in alignment with entrenched circles of vested interest—concerted actions that thoroughly undermine universal values; those should not go any further or future generations will suffer.—Longway22 (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  185. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  186. Jcuhfehl (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  187. It feels really disingenuous of the board to claim that some staff have been pressured to join the union while themselves pressuring staff to not join the union. Voyager640 (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  188. Absolutely. It’s the workers’ choice, and WMF only harms itself by denying the workers their choice, whether the denying comes from the CEO or the board or both. The workers (and volunteers) are who keep this running, not you. Anyone who have taken part in denying the workers their choice and their right should resign from any and all WMF positions immediately. —Freso (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  189. David Bruchmann (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  190. S5A-0043🚎 (Talk) 11:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  191. AshenTarnished (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  192. Chuntuk (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  193. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  194. Carwil (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  195. Joe vom Titan (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  196. Union busting is disgusting. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  197. Every time there is a chance, WMF aims for a new low. And the BoT constantly behaves as a lapdog. This has been going on for as long as I remember (ca 2004 or so) and unfortunately, I see no promising signs for change in the future. Ehitaja (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  198. Giuliotf (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  199. TyWSmith (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  200. Bigtrick (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  201. A spade is a spade and the Wikimedia Foundation have and is engaging in union busting. Time for WMF to recognise the union, Bernadette to resign, and members of the Board of Trustees to consider their position and action to date. -- KTC (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  202. Pierre Bon-Bon (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  203. BLVMF (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  204. Who made the decision to union-bust, and how do we replace them with people who aren't determined to be assholes to WMF employees? Nelson Pavlosky (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  205. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  206. DanGFSouza (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  207. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  208. Sure why not? I had my suspicions, but the WMF's dishonesty about the whole situation is insulting and lacking in dignity, so this is their fault. Besides, this is practically what they ought to do anyway for stated reasons. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  209. Entychologist (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  210. Maryannk01 (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  211. Cryspella (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  212. Irdiism (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  213. A foundation supposed to be charitable, asking for donations every year despite amassing riches beyond belief, now using donation funds to engage in union busting. This is exactly the behavior against the workers for which we criticize tech bro billionaires. Just a reminder to the six-figure making trustees and c-level officers at WMF: The content that makes your job so valuable is provided by volunteers, unpaid. —viciarg 414 06:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  214. WindTempos (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  215. --Yodin T 10:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  216. CheeseAndJamSamdwich (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  217. Grijz (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC) (ater reading this: https://medium.com/regarding-wikipedia/lies-damned-lies-and-union-busting-statements-42254598b6e9)reply
  218. Eddie891 (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  219. This is not what I donated for. Wertercatt (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  220. WalnutBun (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  221. From one of en's 1k most prolific editors, not recognizing the union may be how Wikipedia dies. Swpb (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  222. ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Response from the Board of Trustees

[edit ]

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has heard the calls from community members regarding voluntary union recognition at the Wikimedia Foundation. We want to acknowledge the care and commitment to movement values behind these calls.

The Board does not manage the Foundation's day-to-day work, including employment decisions. Our role is to provide oversight and long-term direction.

We support the Foundation's decision to ask for a secret-ballot vote. This is not a rejection of a union. It is a commitment to ensuring that every eligible staff member can make their own decision freely, privately, and democratically. Some staff have expressed concern about feeling pressured to support the union, and that makes a fair, private process especially important. Everyone deserves the right to express their views without pressure or intimidation from anyone. Foundation leadership has a responsibility to protect the rights of all staff, regardless of a staff member's views on unionization. A secret ballot is the fairest way to ensure every employee has a choice in this decision. Everyone having a voice reflects Wikimedia values, and we would hope that all the members of the Wikimedia communities share this view. - LLosa (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Shame to see a regurgitation of already discredited arguments against voluntary recognition with zero original thoughts put forward. If any staff felt pressured to sign the union cards, that could've been discovered through verification during third-party arbitration as proposed by WWU. The only reasonable conclusion is that the WMF doesn't want a union and is doing everything to prevent it. I'm sorry, I just no longer believe that a bunch of people from various liberal institutions (including an Obama admin official) have just zero slightest idea on how union recognition works in the US and how a good faith settlement could function here. stjn [ru] 21:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
@LLosa (WMF): What is the BoT's objection to a third-party arbitration process to verify the integrity of the signed members, as proposed by WWU? Boud (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
This hardly seems like a day-to-day employment decision. Bawolff (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
@LLosa (WMF): It's a pity that you had to make such a condescending statement on behalf of the BoT, but we aware that this is a collective opinion based on secret discussions, and that you're just the unfortunate spokesperson. A supermajority of the US eligible staff have already made the free, private, democratic decision to join WWU. It is condescending to suggest otherwise. There is long-term testimony of WMF leaders pressuring and intimidating WMF staff and other Wikimedia community members, but no evidence (as far as I know) of WWU members pressuring and intimidating staff. There's no justification to consider WWU members to have no agency. This is an insult to WMF employees. This will add extra stress on WMF employees due to the possible months of delays, the risk of continued workplace bullying (see the four links earlier in this paragraph for evidence), will force many people to waste extra administrative and legal consulting time and money, and will delay the task of rebuilding the relation between WMF and the Wikimedia community. The Board's arrogance towards the WMF employees is a violation of the Wikimedia mission and values.In the words of 404 Media , this sounds again like very carefully-worded language common among companies and organizations that have fought against unionization .[1] Moreover, you (the BoT) are damaging WMF's reputation. You cannot claim that you are unaware that what you are doing is participating in union busting. Boud (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
I would like to believe that you genuinely want what's best from employees. What makes that hard is that your language repeats what every anti-union company who pays a unionbusting firm says.
So ya,it's hard to not see this as the unionbusting that it appears to be. Wwahammy (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Deciding whether or not to recognize a union is very obviously not part of "day to day" operations, and very obviously part of "long-term direction." I'm disappointed by the Board's decision here, and also by its mischaracterization of its decision as a decision by "the Foundation," as if the Foundation isn't governed by the Board, as if the Board doesn't set the Foundation's policies, including its policies about unionization.
I hope the Board will set a strong anti-union-busting policy, forbidding the common practices of employers prior to NLRB votes mentioned on Jimbo's talk page, because people will expect for-profit companies like Amazon to act out of financial self-interest, but not so for non-profits, and definitely not so for the WMF. Levivich (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Disappointing, but not surprising. The Board is the Foundation's highest governing body. If this is what you call oversight, it is difficult to imagine what executive leadership could do that would ever prompt the Board to intervene.Based on this response, the only reasonable conclusion is that the you do not want a union and will do everything to prevent one. For an organization that so often speaks about human rights, participation, and shared values, it is remarkable how quickly those principles seem to disappear when its own employees choose to organize. At this point, the Wikimedia Foundation appears determined to earn itself the reputation of a union-busting employer. Nemoralis (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
@LLosa (WMF), will we see who opposed and supported the voluntary recognition in the vote (or discussion) within the board? Nemoralis (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
Also pinging @Nadzik because you were active in Discord conversation. Nemoralis (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
I suspect that WMF legal advisers interpret the BoT legal and fiduciary duties as legally forcing them to keep their opinions secret. I'm sceptical about whether that's actually true. Thomas Curson Hansard was imprisoned in 1810 for publishing records of British parliamentary debate. So think of it as the BoT legal advisers thinking that they're in the early 19th century, and BoT members worrying about suffering the fate of Hansard. Boud (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Where was it "discredited" that the WMF has the right to ask for a secret ballot vote? Please quote the exact part of applicable labor law that says that WMF management is required to submit to third-party arbitration. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    • @Guy Macon, it is completely legal for the WMF to insist on a paper election conducted by the underfunded Trump-appointed NLRB.

      I find it ironic that half of the BoT trustees are unelected in the first place. For the remaining trustees, online voting was considered secure enough to oversee the foundation's 200ドル million annual budget, yet it is deemed too risky for the 200 US staff. It is en:WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Shushugah (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

    • What is "discredited" is the idea that staff needs to be protected from pressure to join a union. The idea is nonsensical in the first place because it begs the question, i.e. it presumes that pressure to join a union is a bad thing while it's easy to argue the opposite. But even if we grant this premise, 1) there is no proof of such pressure happening in any significant measure and 2) if this were a genuine concern, WMF should somehow also protect employees from bring pressure to not join the union, and I've not seen any step in this direction. Also, if we look at the official statement, I would place a blinking [citation needed] on the sentence «In the US, the secret-ballot election run by a National Labor Relations Board is the fairest way to ensure that all eligible employees can make their choice privately and without pressure» (emphasis added). Nemo 12:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • "We support the Foundation's decision to ask for a secret-ballot vote". This seems orthogonal to the matter at hand, which AFAICT is whether to have voluntary recognition or instead go through a highly bureaucratic NLRB process. Has the WMF asked WWU/CWA whether they'd be willing to run a secret ballot? Surely the obstacle is not technical, they could learn to use Helios Voting. Nemo 12:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • Captive audience meetings, one of which included 200+ employees, is significant pressure to try and convince people not to join a union and is proof that the WMF is committing to doing everything they can to unionbust. The words about movement values are meaningless when those actions have been taken. Clovermoss (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  • @LLosa (WMF): You wrote This is not a rejection of a union and Everyone deserves the right to express their views without pressure or intimidation from anyone and Foundation leadership has a responsibility to protect the rights of all staff, but the WMF has hired the "notorious(ly) anti-union" [2] , union-busting firm Littler Mendelson, which itself boasts that it is prepared to assist [the client] in regard to all the above union prevention tools ... If [the client] would like information on our state of the art union avoidance training programs ... The registration of Littler with the NLRB is stated as 28 July. Whether or not the Board knew, two days later, on 30 July, that Littler had been hired, you know it now. Hiring Littler is rejecting the union and is not protecting the rights of all staff. It is a failure of responsibility. I strongly urge you to urgently convene the Board of Trustees to issue an order to the WMF executive to immediately voluntarily recognise WWU US, since the alternative is a reputational timebomb. The Wikimedia community cannot hide the facts. The sooner that the Board reverses the WMF executive's destructive decision, the less damage there will be to the reputation of the Wikimedia commmunity, broadly construed. We are all in this together: please do the right thing. Boud (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  • @LLosa (WMF), I understand that the Board's position is that it does not interfere in the day-to-day running of the WMF, but I am greatly concerned about the effect that this will have on the WMF's reputation. I believe a headline like "Wikimedia Foundation Hires Amazon's Union-Busting Law Firm" will do real damage to our goodwill among donors. The kind of people who donate to an NGO that promotes free knowledge and supports projects like Wikipedia are not going to be pleased to hear this is where their money is going. We were just cheerfully telling people "knowledge is human" and now the headlines will be telling them that we're no better than Amazon. And once they cancel recurring donations, will they be back? "Wikimedia Foundation Changes Course, Recognizes Union" won't spread as quickly and extensively as the negative headline, and we all know it. This is not the day-to-day running of the WMF. It could easily become a crisis. Please reconsider. asilvering (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
  • @LLosa (WMF), to add to asilvering comment above, allow me a couple of questions. Only a few days ago, Jimmy Wales said that the foundation has not hired any union-busting firms. The executive board has a duty of candour to ensure that the board of trustees can meet its fudiciary duties. If Jimmy Wales was under the impression that no companies known primarily for union-busting were retained by the Foundation, does that extend to the rest of the board? Was the BoT informed about this decision? And when? Was it informed of the reputational risk of hiring a firm that was described as the country's most notorious union-busting law firm. Has it been informed about how much loss of donor money we have had so far and the risk when this hits major newspapers? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ↑ Wikimedia Will Not Voluntarily Recognize Union a Supermajority of Its Workers Want (Q140735365)
  2. ↑ Walker, Abraham (25 November 2024). "Third Time's the Charm: Assessing the UAW's Decade-Long Struggle for a Union at Volkswagen". w:New Labor Forum 34 (1): 23–31. doi:10.1177/10957960241299337 . Retrieved 2 August 2026. This allowed it to make a respectable showing despite much more intense employer hostility, abetted by notorious anti-union law firm Littler Mendelson and a mandatory captive audience meeting featuring the governor as guest of honor.

Opposition

[edit ]
  1. WMF staff have more rights than the volunteer contributors. They also have more rights than the WMF contractors and Wikimedia staff and contractors of the affiliates. Even being employed (or contracted) by WMF is a priviledge that is geographically restricted as the last time I checked WMF only signed contracts with people from a rather narrow and odd list of countries numbering about 20. We should not encourage futher benefits for the staff that volunteer contributors do not have. Rather this might be an opportunity to start moving towards deprofessionalisation of the movement. Something that is long due. Do get me right: there are many US (and UK) based WMF staff people that I value a lot and it would be a big blow to the movement were they to leave it, on bad terms and thus unwilling to help as volunteers to boot. That said there are many more volunteer contributors whom have to be the first class citizens in the movement, not the WMF staff (some of whom never even did a single byte of contribution as a volunteer). And do not tell me about human rights, I am writing this message from the position of having much more of my human rights being violated and there is absolutely nothing WMF can (and frankly also should, because it is out of scope) do about it. Human rights are a state issue, not a free knowledge movement issue unless we are talking about the knowledge related rights. --Base (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    Do WMF staff have the right to not be bullied by WMF leaders? Volunteer contributors have the benefit of (nearly) full transparency, so on-wiki bullying, the equivalent of workplace bullying, tends to be handled efficiently (such as with w:WP:ANI on enwiki). It's five years since the first reports I've linked, and the WMF workplace bullying problem appears to still be present. Boud (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    That is a very good point you are making. For basically as long as I am in the movement I heard some things, from staff being more willing to ask things from volunteers than from fellow staff, or especially management to some staff confidentially sharing things that smell of ulterior motives or plain corruption to me. There are precious staff people that I would love to protect or in some cases bring back to the machine as in my opinion it is them who turn its wheels in the right direction despite others pulling it the other way. That being said I do not believe a union can in any way solve these issues. Are we sure that the union won't just become a way to cement bullying with all the wrong people taking leadership roles there too? I am not, and I do not want those people who already have too much power, again I look at this vis-a-vis volunteers, but it is also true relatively to other staff at least in some cases, gaining even more power and having a way to force the movement to give them more when in a perfect world I would rather take what they already have from them. --Base (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    Well, for one, managers are legally not allowed to be in the union IIRC. So on that front there's less of those people going to any positions (not that I think any manager is inherently bad, (削除) only the C-suite (削除ここまで)). stjn [ru] 00:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    Here in Germany that's not the case, my first contract was signed by the Personalchef, who was definitely a union member and also a former works council head. OK, C-level are not represented at the works council and are afaik not allowed to strike, but that doesn't hinder anyone from being a union member. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (Reden) 13:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
    Yes, I was talking about the US unionisation effort. stjn [ru] 13:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply
    Are we sure that the union won't just become a way to cement bullying with all the wrong people taking leadership roles there too? No, we're not: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".As I said over at WVP, There's no guarantee that in a decade or so (or even sooner), WWU will not have flaws as serious as (but complementary to) those of the WMF leadership. Institutional safeguards and structures that tend to reduce those flaws are needed in both WMF and WWU. Anyone talking constructively with WWU organisers right now might have a chance of convincing them to make the right institutional choices now that reduce the chance of WWU becoming evil by 2036.Supporting the right of association is a risk.But refusing the right of association is an even greater risk. The WMF leaders are already an "association" (in this generic sense) as an organised group with a lot of legal and financial power. Better have a balance of power than a unique organised power. Boud (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    Any volunteer organization of reasonable size has professional staff. Someone needs to maintain the servers, and whatever administrative responsibilities are involved in hosting the largest website on the internet. The professionals doing this work have a different relationship to WMF than the volunteers contributing edits, and they absolutely deserve different rights and protections than the volunteers have. This is how they earn a living, put food on their tables and a roofs over their heads. That's a fundamentally different proposition than what a volunteer faces when they choose to participate on the site. Most, if not all, of what is covered in a collective agreement will be irrelevant for volunteer editors. Should editors be granted set vacation time, sick leave, health insurance? Should we deny those benefits to people who work for WMF because the volunteers don't also get them? Of course not. TyWSmith (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply
    • The problem with this stance is that it requires management to be more in line with the community than the rank-and-file are, otherwise how will the community be helped by having less protections for employees? Even if you assume that the WMF staffers and the community are two constituencies with colliding interests, e.g. because you'd like to move more money from the "WMF staff wages" box to something else, e.g. by reducing the WMF headcount (or reducing it in the USA compared to other places), there is no reason to assume that forming a union would be an obstacle. Nemo 13:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply


Abstaining

[edit ]
  • I'm not placing myself in the signatures list yet because I'm not sure what we're discussing. If we assume good faith in the Board statements (which, to be fair, is a quite difficult stance when it comes to the USA-based entities and management statements on labor relations) it sounds like the Board has already directed the CEO/ED to facilitate unionization, but the ED opted for a way which actually goes in the opposite direction. So, by asking the Board to override the ED decision, are we asking a rebuke of the ED? Or what exactly are we expecting to happen next, would the ED have to admit to have been misled by infamously union-busting lawyers and walk back everything that was done in the past several months? Nemo 13:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    I interpret the statement as meaning the Board didn't make any decision (if they had, there'd be a public Board Resolution), thereby leaving the decision to the CEO (as if it were a day-to-day operations decision and not a policy decision), and the CEO decided not to voluntarily recognize the union or go to arbitration, thereby requiring an NLRB vote. I think yes, if the Board issued a resolution requiring voluntary recognition, that would be an implicit rebuke of the CEO. If the resolution were passed, the CEO would have to voluntarily recognize the union, but I don't think the CEO would have to publicly admit anything or walk back anything; she could, but it'd be a choice. In reality, they'd spin it with the usual PR stuff: "After further consultation with the Board and community, the Foundation has decided to voluntarily recognize..." Levivich (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

An outside perspective

[edit ]

Voluntary recognition of a union based on authorization cards is not a routine, day-to-day operational decision. It fundamentally reshapes the organization's legal, financial, and operational structure, as well as employee relations, for years to come. For this reason, it falls squarely within the realm of high-level strategic oversight, which is the Board's direct responsibility. Naturally, the Board has the right not to support the formation of a union. However, in that case, it should state its arguments openly and directly. This would allow union organizers to offer counterarguments, enabling employees to make a well-informed decision in an NLRB secret ballot vote – which, in such a scenario, would actually make sense. I previously asked for such an honest presentation of the Board position on the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard, because I believe taking responsibility for one's stance is the prerequisite for making optimal decisions, and it is something we can rightly expect from the Board members.

Certain corporations officially express their deep support for unions and the right to associate, but later attempt to question workers' choices – claiming that employees did not actually want a union, but merely signed authorization cards without knowing what they were doing or because they were manipulated. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, leadership in those corporations does everything possible to discourage employees from voting for the union in official NLRB ballots. I believe the Wikimedia Foundation should not behave this way. Doing so would be received very poorly by all stakeholders – employees, affiliates, and the editing community alike – regardless of their individual views on the need for a union.

What I write here is strictly on my own behalf, as a volunteer editing Wikipedia since 2002, who deeply cares about movement values such as transparency and integrity. Best, Gdarin | talk 07:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Update: Above, I wrote about the need for the Board to take a clear stance, but there is one more thing that needs to be brought to attention. Wikipedia should be edited according to the rules. The en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and en:Wikipedia:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages policies apply to everyone, including @User:Shushugah, who should refrain from creating the en:Wikimedia_and_unions article (of very questionable standalone notability), especially since these issues are already described in the main article (en:Wikimedia_Foundation#Unionization and en:Wikimedia_Foundation#Community_tech_team_disbanding). Gdarin | talk 13:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Updates

[edit ]

For people who missed it:

Boud (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /