Hello, BMeehan-WMF. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
@BMeehan-WMF: Hi there! Sorry for the late reply. I've since found out that the outing situation is committed by a globally banned user. As such, I've sent two emails to you bmeehan at wikimedia.org inbox by now from a ProtonMail address of mine whose titles should be along the lines of "Reporting BrillLyle global ban evasions". Thank you.~2026-15257-71 (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@BMeehan-WMF: You're welcome! Unfortunately the T&S team told me that they're not choosing to ban the ban-evader's IP address identities at this time, although I had since found an additional temporary account which had been used by the ban-evader in the past. Please understand that ultimately the situation will require your personal attention with respect to handling and resolution given the complexity of it.
Latest update: I've since secured help from local project admins User:JBW and User:Oshwah to assist in the remediation and the resolution of the situation, although unfortunately they're acting too slowly at this point.~2026-26830-87 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is a great question and I don't want it lost in the mix. I'd like to see either a statement confirming that the WMF isn't working with Jones Day any more, or a statement justifying why it's the best choice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi everyone, I’ve been following this conversation on wiki closely over the past several days. I appreciate the care and engagement that community members have shown, and I am committed to thoughtful engagement over the long term.
The issue of unionization is one I take seriously, not just as the new CEO of the Foundation but also as a former union member. Earlier in my career I was a dues paying union member for 13 years, which gives me a personal appreciation for the perspectives and strong opinions involved. Stephen addressed the questions around unionization but let me reiterate here so that we are grounded in a key fact: the Wikimedia Foundation respects the rights of all eligible employees to determine for themselves whether to pursue union representation. We are committed to ensuring that any process related to union conversations respects the rights and perspectives of all staff. We aren’t only doing this because the law requires it; I want the Foundation to operate this way because I think it’s the right approach.
Separately, just like on Wikipedia, consistent with WP:CIVIL, I not only welcome but encourage dissent, good faith disagreement, and new ideas, as long as discussions are respectful. I have been meeting hundreds of staff and community members around the world as part of my onboarding - both in large and small groups and in individual conversations - and I’ve been hearing lots of direct feedback. People have not been holding back with their concerns, ideas, and questions. It’s been very valuable to hear this feedback, and I will continue to engage with anyone who would like to talk with me.
I know this conversation matters a great deal, including in part because it centers on staff who editors know and work with directly. Many of you have years-long relationships with the staff involved, have felt the benefits of their work directly, and also care deeply about the community wishlist and the role it plays in addressing the needs of volunteers. We have been working together with impacted staff, and Selena provided more detail here about those conversations and processes. I also recognize that some of these conversations have connected to broader concerns, including long-standing issues and strongly held perspectives that have developed over years, and these discussions deserve the proper time and space to continue.
I am new to this role, but I commit to you that my team and I are here to listen. There are lessons we can learn immediately from how we’ve handled this - about listening more closely and working with you all on ideas when something isn’t working well, like the community wishlist. On that point, Selena has been working over the past several days to review your feedback and refine our approach. You'll see that she is welcoming additional input and has made a time bound specific commitment for next steps.
Healthy movements, especially ones as global and decentralized as ours, will always contain tension, debate, and competing priorities. What matters is whether we can navigate those differences together, with respect, good faith, a belief that we can always do better, and a commitment to the mission we all care about. If you would like to, I invite you to reach out to me. I can respond here on my talk page, or join for a call.
Hi Bernadette. I greatly appreciate your commitment to listen here. For me, at least, the biggest glaring issue right now, in communication with the WMF, is that Selena and others keep dodging the one question everyone wants answered, which is why the WMF chose to lay these people off in the first place, losing 10,000+ worker-hours per year on the same project they say they're trying to improve. So far every statement has just sidestepped this question and treated it as a given that everyone would be laid off, even though we know the Foundation has disbanded teams before without laying people off, which comes off as insulting the community's intelligence.I've asked both Selena and Jimbo two questions, which neither has yet answered. The first question is the one I've just described, and while you may not have been involved in the decisionmaking and able to comment personally, I hope you're able to at least get somebody else to answer it. The second question ("Is the Foundation willing to remedy the harms they've caused and rebuild community trust by offering those transfers now?"), on the other hand, is something you may be better-positioned than anyone else to answer. If the Foundation wants to recover this situation and restore community trust, I do not think there is a path back that doesn't involve remedying the layoffs, either through transfers or, as described in this proposal, reconstituting CommTech as part of an improvement to the Wishlist process. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi! Thanks a lot for sharing this update with us. You're right, these are absolutely conversations that we need to have together, and openness to listen and discuss is always a great first step. I am happy to learn that you do support employees having the right to join unions from the standpoint of a broader philosophy, rather than just as a legal requirement – and that is what I believe the Wikimedia movement should strive for at a wider scale. If our fundamental goals are aligned, and we are ready to work together in concrete terms and work on any disagreements, we can be an unstoppable force.I am happy to see you lay the groundwork towards addressing these more concrete questions. It is clear that the concerns Tamzin raised are shared more broadly throughout the community, and a call will be a great way to present the plan you are working on to remedy these harms, and lay the groundwork to go further from there, answering any questions community members may have. Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I welcome this statement, which goes beyond others in its positive commitment to people being able to speak up without risk and towards unionisation efforts. I'm also glad you have been able to create a open discussion with staff in your listening tour. That said, I've been taken aback by the cultural change that is needed in the Foundation. I did not expect to hear from many independent directions that people are afraid to speak out when they disagree with upper management. I did not expect there would be stringent NDAs when people leave, sudden firings of highly competent staff, and a lack of workers representation, be it in the form of codetermination, a union or otherwise. I hope you can bring about the change that we need. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
"The Wikimedia Foundation respects the rights of all eligible employees to determine for themselves whether to pursue union representation." I'm sorry Bernadette but actions speak louder than words. WMF's actions this month look like nothing more than textbook, bald-faced union busting tactics from our perspective and the WMF has given us no reason to believe anything to the contrary. I believe in civil discourse but to tell you the truth, this month the WMF has made me incredibly angry in a way I've never felt before in my 21 years as a Wikimedia volunteer. Unceremoniously firing your lead dev and an entire team with no explanation isn't civil, so I see no reason to pretend I feel differently about this. Don't forget that your nonprofit depends on our volunteer labor which we will withhold if we feel it's necessary. Also, don't forget those donations. They can be withheld too. In fact, I've already heard from multiple people who are cancelling their recurring donations until this situation is resolved. I see no reason to continue to support a WMF that doesn't value its own workers.
What I would like to see, first and foremost is for the WMF to offer those fired workers their jobs back with a public apology, and formally recognize the WWU. Then, enter into a good faith contract negotiation with them. Their demands seem very reasonable to me. Oh, and please get rid of that union busting law firm. And while you're at it, why not update your charter to include solidarity with your own workers and entering into collective bargaining in good faith.
Once you've done all that, then I think we would be more than happy to have a civil conversation about how much you value your workers and support their rights to pursue union representation. Fadookie (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I will once again quote you: "The Wikimedia Foundation respects the rights of all eligible employees to determine for themselves whether to pursue union representation." So your plan to do this was to not voluntarily recognize the union that a supermajority of your US-based employees already signed cards to support? They already voted, this is a clear tactic to delay or avoid what they clearly want. When you say you support your workers' right to unionize, it's clearly a lie. Your volunteers and workers have spoken. I implore you, it's not too late to do the right thing. Recognize the WWU in the US and enter into good-faith contract negotiation. -Fadookie (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I truly appreciate your offer to listen, and especially thanks for the strong support for labor you indicated, Ms. Meehan. Unfortunately, your update itself immediately raised doubts in me about the seriousness of your intent on both counts. This is due to the lack of response to the question about WMF's union busting(!) law firm, Jones Day. I had not heard of the firm, but a quick search confirmed this characterization of them as union busters, in this Columbia Journalism Review piece), and (appropriately) on Wikipedia:Jones Day.
In response to your update, I see that several more Wikipedians have asked related questions, as well as questions on other topics relevant to the situation. I have no questions to add, but I very much look forward to reading your responses to all of the questions already here. Unfortunately, the delay so far has raised further doubts in me. I can't help wondering if you are talking with Jones Day lawyers about how best to respond. Day by day, my interest strengthens in hearing about and supporting whatever actions come together from those who are concerned, including the well over 1,000 of us now who have signed the solidarity petition with Wiki Workers United.
I have never been a particularly active editor myself, but my first edits go back to before the Foundation or MediaWiki existed, and I helped organize several conferences about wiki in the 2000s. Wikipedia matters to me, especially in the context of increasing levels of slop on the Web, and a US administration keen to distort & erase history. Responding to the questions asked here would go a long way to assure me that you are indeed listening. The answers given and the actions taken (or not taken) by the WMF, will tell me a lot about how you intend to lead the Foundation, and what the community may have to do to defend Wikipedia. John Abbe (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I can see my last comment ended already expecting it might be necessary to defend Wikipedia from the Foundation. Which was a sad thing to notice! What I, and I believe a lot of us, would like to see instead is for the Foundation to make a turn from cutting investments in the relationship with the community, to enriching the relationship with the community. Now, I have questions.
Does the WMF have any announcements to make in directions that would grow its relationship with the community?
When will we hear from you again? Or when will you be listening again? Would you be willing to attend one or both of the cafés at the end of the month, and listen?
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ms Meehan. I am a retired Canadian intelligence analyst and frequent user of Wikipedia. I know of the importance of reliable sourcing in a world of dis- and misinformation. How can I help? ~2026-38328-74 (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
July 2026 Wikimedia Café meetups regarding Wikimedia governance and options for reform
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! There will be two Wikimedia Café discussion opportunities in July. Both sessions will focus on Wikimedia governance, including possible follow-ups to the Movement Charter and options for reform. Participants may attend either or both Café sessions.
This month, to deconflict the Café meetups from Wikimania, the meetups will be held one day later than usual.
26 July 2026 15:00 UTC (timestamp converter), at a time friendly to the Americas, Africa, and Europe
27 July 2026 03:00 UTC (timestamp converter), at a time friendly to Asia and the Pacific
Please see the Café page for more information, including how to register!
I have personally stayed out of this matter, assuming good faith on the part of the Foundation. However, the recent decision to hire a law firm that according to its Wikipedia page is the largest union avoidance firm in the US lead me to believe that either you and your team are misleading the movement about your stance on unionization or whoever on your team hired the firm did not even think to perform a simple Google search to check the firm's reputation.
I think I speak for the entire movement when I say we are disappointed in you and your team's actions. Our movement is built on the pillars of transparency and honesty, and we expect the same from our leadership. Misleading the movement about your stance on unionization and (mis)using donor funds to retain a union-avoidance law firm for the purpose of avoiding voluntary union recognition is a serious breach of trust that the movement has placed on you and runs counter to the values we hold dear. Based on this, I would respectfully call for both you and the CPO, as well as other members of the leadership team who were involved in this decision to resign.
Please note that civility is expected in this discussion and all others. Making personal attacks, insults, or threats may result in a revocation of editing privileges. This applies when talking to any contributor to the project, includingWMF staff.
This has severely damaged my trust in the Foundation's leadership.At this point, I no longer believe the current leadership is acting in the best interests of the Foundation or the Wikimedia movement. I therefore join Sohom's call. Nemoralis (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sadly, the current leadership is acting in the best interests of the Foundation. However, the Foundation's goals no longer align with those of readers or editors of projects such as Wikipedia. Building an encyclopedia, dictionary, etc. have been replaced as priorities by exponential budget growth and politically correct statements about inclusion. At the base of its pyramid, the WMF still has many good employees and contractors, but I have no confidence in its upper management. Certes (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is outrageous. I am appalled by the picture the facts seem to suggest, and I'm having trouble imagining any response that would restore my faith in even a neutral stance from the WMF in this matter (a supporting one, despite the rhetoric of past communications, seems utterly unbelievable at this point). I hope the community will rise up in protest should the situation remain as dire as the scenario above indicates, and will do my best to support demands for rolling back on this path, before the reputation of the WMF (and the Wikimedia movement, by extension) is irreparably damaged. --Waldyrious (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am fully seconding this message. At best, we are left to assume that the entire executive leadership has been unaware of the fact that they perfectly stumbled into the typical union-busting playbook in a massive coincidence, and have been unable to listen to the community at any point in this beyond bland reassurances. Any other interpretation means you lied to our faces about supporting your own employees while deliberately sabotaging their attempts at unionizing, and tried to gain time by misdirecting the community with platitudes. Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I remember being cautiously optimistic that maybe you'd be different and actually listen to people. You said the right words at the time, afterall. But I was cautious even then because we've seen a lot of people use us and then ignore us when it's no longer convenient. But I was determined to not be bitter by prior experiences. By your own admission, I was the first volunteer to email you. But all this rang hollow after the dissolution of CommTech and both you and Selena's refusal to acknowledge the community on-wiki post-May 24. You know how I felt about all that because I was exceedingly clear in an email I sent that I recieved no reply to. Of course, that didn't stop you for bringing me up by name during your speech at wikimania's pre-conference day. I was in the front row, silently crying because I couldn't stand the disconnect between your words and actions, and then you dared to bring me into it as an example of people you've listened to. I don't like the idea of calling for people's jobs. But you're also not like me. You're paid an amount of money that is unimaginable to me on a personal level to do a job you've failed to do. All I have left to sit with is the question I asked a few days later and what your response to it was: [1]. Clovermoss (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to echo or amplify a point Clovermoss made a few times during sessions at Wikimania, which is that not everyone from the community can make these conferences, so communication from senior WMF leadership being put on-wiki is crucial because otherwise we have limited opportunity to voice our concerns to the Board of Trustees. My point about actions not matching words made during the fireside chat still stands. This rupture between the community and WMF will continue to get worse unless the Board of Trustees takes corrective action on itself, and takes steps to reform itself so it is more transparent and accountable to the community. Abzeronow (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support resignation BMeehan-WMF from your position as CEO of WMF. In Littler Mendelson's own words, it is a union busting firm: Littler Mendelson is prepared to assist you in regard to all the above union prevention tools ... If you would like information on our state of the art union avoidance training programs ... As CEO of WMF, you hold political responsibility for the decision to use a union-busting firm against the vast majority of WMF US employees, irresponsibly spending WMF funds and wasting time, and adding unnecessary stress to WMF employees already subjecttolong-termbullying. WWU is strongly supported by the Wikimedia movement. As Sohom Dattastated above, Our movement is built on the pillars of transparency and honesty, and we expect the same from our leadership. Misleading the movement about your stance on unionization and (mis)using donor funds to retain a union-avoidance law firm for the purpose of avoiding voluntary union recognition is a serious breach of trust that the movement has placed on you and runs counter to the values we hold dear. I agree that CBasssherizen-WMF, as Chief People Officer, should resign too. Boud (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
If it looks like union busting and quacks like union busting, then it was always union busting. Joining the calls to resign, fire that firm, and for the WMF to enter good faith voluntary recognition negotiations, which is the most important part here. From the PR standpoint, what's most disappointing about this is that, when more and more regular people would learn of this, it would just prove to them that Wikipedia gets too many donations and they're being spent incredibly frivolously (much more than if it was a consulting form without that baggage). stjn[ru]11:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support resignation for misleading the public with your answer at Wikimania, and misspending donor funds on union busting. This is not what we are about. WMF is not Amazon or Starbucks. Surely you yourself realize by now that you are not the best fit for this job, and this recent string of decisions is proving to be a monumental distraction to the organization. Levivich (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support. After days of "we're not anti-union, we just want democratic elections", this collaboration is proof enough for me that the WMF is acting in an anti-union way. Assuming the best of faiths, it's still anti-union, there's no reasonable doubt anymore. You don't go to the "I will make sure unionisation is difficult" law firm if you're not anti-union.
I would strongly echo Sohom's sentiments here, including that I had hoped that WMF would make the right choice here (after its various platitudes about supporting workers' rights to unionize, etc.) and then found myself incredibly disappointed with the refusal to voluntarily recognize the union, the vague (and as yet unsupported) allusions to employees being pressured to support the union effort and some supposed group of (as yet silent) employees whose opposition to the initiative apparently outweighs the supermajority, and now this choice to hire Littler Mendelson.I am also deeply annoyed at the various attempts by the WMF, its staff, and various other affiliated people to gaslight employees and community members alike by claiming that their decisions and statements are not anti-union, that punting to the NLRB is the "fairest" way forward, that "there are no 'union-avoidance law firms' involved here", etc. We are not so naive as to think that only a statement along the lines of "The WMF will never recognize a union and we think unions are bad" is the only circumstance in which we can fairly say the WMF is opposing union efforts. I think we have all heard enough endlessly PR team–workshopped statements out of the WMF to know that this is the WMF's usual way of trying to wave off concerns about unpopular decisions; my only surprise is that the WMF and various employees have not yet learned that the community (and general public — see "full of very carefully-worded language that is common among companies and organizations that have fought against unionization") can read between the lines perfectly capably.There is still an opportunity for the WMF to reverse course on this huge mistake, although the damage is certainly done as far as (yet further) erosion of trust in the WMF. I would urge you to reverse course regardless. The alternative is a protracted fight with employees who overwhelmingly support a union, and a community that has their backs — a fight that I do not believe the WMF will win. The collateral damage from this fight will be to the Wikimedia projects that we are all here to support and improve. Why you think that opposing unionization efforts in a project like Wikimedia, for goodness sake, is not only the right path forward but a path that is liable to succeed, is completely beyond me, and it makes me question how people with that mindset found themselves in decisionmaking rooms at the WMF. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support In only the first six months of your term as CEO, you have overseen the destruction of one of the most popular and productive teams at the foundation and the dismissal of people that have given years of their life to the project, all as part of a short-sighted attempt to crack down on a unionisation effort; you then lied to the community about this happening over a period of months while spending donor's money to hire a union-busting firm, causing such deep damage to community-foundation relations and mutual trust that it may take years to repair. If none of this was done with malicious intent, then it demonstrates a shockingly profound level of incompetence in running a public-facing organisation. Either way, I no longer think you are right for this role and would urge you to resign at the earliest convenience. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Bernadette. I'm not here to call for resignations, and have the opinion that you may ultimately have a significant positive impact on this movement. I hope you're able to do that. But I do want to share a succinct version of what I think is a very important distinction: when it comes to the ethos of the WMF and the broader Wikimedia movement (for which WMF is a public representative), there is a world of difference between passively withholding support for a union and marshaling resources to make worker disempowerment an affirmative organizational project. Sort your decisions into those two categories as you see fit, and please rethink any that might've crossed into the latter. The union may represent workers, but you represent all of this. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
This discussion reminds me of the old saying that an expert is a guy from out of town carrying a briefcase -- and unfortunately organizations tend to hire people from outside, apparently because an unfamiliar outsider looks better than someone from inside who actually knows the organization and the job. Bernadette seems to be an outsider who looked better at a distance than she does close up. Smallchief (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
On the question of who is responsible for this, the decision around hiring in France might give a clue. Only tech jobs are barred from this pro-union country. Was that a compromise between the CPO and CTO? Why has the CPO been so quiet on the topic? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
CPO can mean “Chief People Officer” (Courtney) or “Chief Product Officer” (Selena). I think Femke meant the latter. It doesn’t matter to call on Courtney to leave because she has been planning to depart soon anyway (September, I think). This information has been public internally for a while. — ~2026-42802-50 (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
We now have the announcement that CPO decided to leave in April. This comes a month after the Foundation started to push its anti-union messages, and about a month before the announcements to lay off / force the departure of various union supporters/organisers such as Brooke Vibber and people in the CommTech team.
I do not believe this a coincidence. As a CPO, you would be very uncomfortable if your name became associated with the US' most notorious union busting firm Littler Mendelson. If these layoffs were more than a coincidence, and instead skirted or broke the law, that would be the perfect moment to leave. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I want to make sure this doesn't spread further. This is incorrect. It is not at all the reason I chose to leave. I told WMF staff in April and the transition plan was in the works for quite some time before then. CBasssherizen-WMF (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Shameful. Respectfully, if you're considering responding to this with a self-serving attempt at satisficing in the superficial corporo-speak we've all become accustomed to hearing, don't bother. It'll only piss people off more, myself included. Either seriously change course or resign, your position and several others' are untenable. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support. Bernadette, the Wikimedia Foundation's fall from grace since the start of your tenure is more of what I would expect from a hostile takeover by private equity than from a change of leadership at a respected nonprofit. As Sohom explained, the recent conduct of WMF leadership shows deception or incompetence, and either possibility calls for another leadership change. Please resign. — Newslingertalk00:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I echo the concerns of my colleagues, above. But I would also like to raise a point that hasn't been emphasized so far: what do you think is going to happen to our recurring donors when they hear that the friendly "knowledge is human" NGO they've been donating to has hired the same union-busting law firm as Amazon and Starbucks? This will hit the media soon. It's a great headline, for all the worst possible ways. And that will hurt our reputation and our donor base. And for what? What is the WMF actually achieving, by fighting these unionization efforts? This is a terrible waste of donor money, a terrible waste of staff and community goodwill, and quite likely to damage our reputation with our donor base. Anyone at the WMF who supported this decision should be strongly reconsidering whether they actually want to work for the Wikimedia Foundation in the first place. asilvering (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Think of it this way, Bernadette. If you bail out now, you can get away before the WikiMedia Foundation has to face the the public relations crisis and possible lawsuit you've created, and this can be nothing more than an embarrassing little blemish on your record. But if you stick around, it will be your own professional reputation that goes down the drain as this plays out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to signal boost and give some context to this comment. Over on en wiki, TBUA is the single loudest voice in the community trying to prevent or limit an editorial strike in solidarity with WWU in the name of avoiding disruption to the project. The fact that they've come over here and joined the call for your professional head should show the amount of support and runway left on this issue are both negligible. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
If I understand correctly, we can replace their banners. I'm shocked that they don't realise that. --ABx11 (she/they) 15:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Destruction amplified; FramGate tactics x1000. Hilarious waste of donor money, even putting Jimbo's face on the donation banners as if WWU was the oppressors and the WMF the victims. Carefully crafting a web of lies. I agree with the above. Enough is enough. Please, I am asking you to resign. You have pointed WMF to the path of destruction. I agree with everybody above. Please reconsider your actions. --ABx11 (she/they) 06:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support. As a volunteer editor of a project based on transparency and cooperation, it is utterly painful to see the organization supposed to defend all of us behaving in such an insincere way, repeating usual PR stuff and aligning on anti-union companies. In a galactic nutshell: "If this body is not capable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed". DarkVador79-UA (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support. Per everyone above, the hiring of a union busting lawfirm is incompatible with our values. You knew or should have known about the appearance here, and frankly I cannot trust you when you say what appears to be happening (union avoidance/busting) isn't what is actually happening at this point. Resign. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support. I am unsure whether you genuinely do not see why people are taking issue or simply do not care. Regardless, your response makes it utterly clear you are unfit. I hope now, you will finally read the room, and leave quietly with some honor. Lest the board of trustess forces you out, or we force them to force you out. Regardless, I think it's time we think about who can call a strike. MBAB (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to reiterate a very softly-worded warning about being careful about comments which could be construed as threats here. While I don't think anything in your comment is reaching over the line enough to need to be redacted, you are coming very close to the line with the wording about or we force them to force you out, which could be construed as a threat. Please keep wording in mind. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support generally, I'm fairly weary of WMF-community conflicts since (especially given the culture on the internet) the community has every incentive to portray the foundation in as negative and oppressive a light as possible. However, that only applies to genuine overreactions from the community. For months, I was suspicious of the community and (slightly) sympathetic to the WMF, and even then, largely since I thought people were jumping the gun when we lacked info. We now have new info, and I have changed my opinion. At least for transparency reasons, this is unacceptable, and to echo Thebiguglyalien (talk·contribs), you should, at least for self-preservation reasons, step down before your Wikipedia article gets major revisions about this ordeal with RSes (and that's not even a threat; that's what will happen with this PR-Tsar Bomba in the making). Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Here to confirm that I am too "disappointed in you and your team's actions". The follow up response does not comfort me in the slightest. These aren't actions compatible with a volunteer-driven community. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support, given the tone deaf update below. An absolute shameful waste of donors money, and a massive middle finger to our readers, the community, and to WMF staff. I've donated previously, but in the future I'll be giving more goodwill than money, and I'm all out of goodwill left to give. nilnz03:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support. Together with everyone else responsible for this. As for those wanting or hoping that board will act in the best interests of the union and the community, think again. The only reason the board may oust Bernadette and others is to save their own position. Just read the talk page of Jimbo Wales on enwiki, you'll see the exact same spin and deflection. Or on an unrelated but too similar matter, read Victoria's evasive answers on Requests_for_comment/The future of Abstract Wikipedia#WMF Board response. "Now that WMF is under increased pressure from the organised hostile agents including the governments, it's become even more important not to disclose any data, which could give them an opening to harm the Community." Yeah, sure... Fram (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support the call for resignation. After the obfuscation and lying I have no trust on the CEO and others in the board who supported the recent decisions. They are putting the whole movement at risk. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support, reluctantly, the call for resignation. It is clear to me that you and the editors above have committed yourselves to a path where peace is no longer possible. The response below is the language with which one speaks to an enemy when trying to justify oneself in the eyes of third parties. As a third party who has been hitherto largely out of the loop on this whole WWU fiasco, I'm here to tell you that it isn't working. You have lost my trust, regardless of any merits your position might once have had, and if forced to choose a side, I will side with the people who speaking honestly and actually writing an encyclopedia 100% of the time. LWG (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am in general not one to grab a pitchfork at the first opportunity, and there have been many of those in recent weeks. Being aware that there is only so much we can know at any moment, and that some important information is always going to be missing from the picture, I have patiently waited for enough uncertainties to clear up, while encouraging other editors to practice strategic patience. This approach has led to me taking more than my fair share of flak for being willing to consider alternative explanations at every turn. However, at this point I am afraid the body of evidence available (including B. Meehan's statement below) has taken a much more concrete shape, and not a pleasant one at that. It is clear that we are not (anymore) in a situation where the flare-ups are caused by historical tensions and miscommunications between Foundation and Community: no, the place we have now reached necessarily implies a meaningful amount of either incompetence, neglect, or deception, and more likely than not a mix of the three. To which degree, and because of whom, I cannot fully tell myself, as the situation is not that crystal clear yet. Nevertheless, what is clear is that there is a situation, that it is not controlled, and that it is escalating. Because of this, the stakes are clearly rising, both in terms of long-term Foundation-Community relations damage, and the massive reputational and therefore associated financial risk. What I can only do as an editor is to call on everyone who can help, at every level (meaning influential editors, WMF staff, and especially board members), to help correct course as fast and hard as possible. It is not too late to stir this ship away from the breakers. If that includes the CPO, other executives, or even the CEO falling on their sword, so be it. It is now time to take your responsibilities, stir things back on course, or abandon ship to not stand in the way of those who still remember your mission. We certainly remember ours. Choucas 🐦⬛17:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support. This is soon to be the most argued petition in enwiki history, not to mention all the other wikis the WMF's actions impact. Do we really expect WMF staff to do nothing for 90 days, then actively fight union efforts? No, thank you. Somepinkdude (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support. I would be shocked if this got any more engagement beyond the "update" below, but I'll share my piece anyway. Labor representation by a democratic union leadership is exactly aligned with the values of this movement, as everyone at WMF should be aware. Digging your heels in, hiring union busters, and trotting out unsubstantiated accusations of malfeasance are par for the course for most companies facing union organizing, but we expect better from you. You are debasing and humiliating the organization you lead. Doubly so because these efforts are futile: you WILL allow discussion of unionization through work channels because you are legally required to do so. You WILL NOT interfere with union activity because that is illegal. And when the vote is done, you WILL engage in good faith collective bargaining with the union because you must do so under US law. And if your brigade of briefcase-toting pinkertons convince you that the Trump NLRB will not hold you accountable for illegal union busting, you are in for a nasty surprise because WE WILL. Rutebega (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Update from Bernadette 03 August 2026
Hi All: I’ve taken the time to read your comments. As I said during my fireside chat at Wikimania, I don’t view unionization at WMF as an adversarial process. As a past union member for 13 years, I understand personally the benefits that unions can bring to organizations. Everyone on the executive team is at WMF because we believe deeply in the mission of ensuring people everywhere have access to free knowledge, just like all of you. While I’ve learned in the last six months that there are lots of issues and approaches on which our movement disagrees, we share a common mission. Wikimedia Foundation staff are central to advancing this mission, and my commitment is to ensure they can do their best work in an organization where they feel supported and fulfilled. Their success is our collective success, including mine, why would I want otherwise?
As CEO I have a responsibility to all staff. We have received direct complaints from staff who have said they felt pressured to support a union. We were open about this so people would understand why we support a secret ballot vote. It feels from the discussion below as though I’m being asked to ignore these staff voices, which I can’t do. When people ask why don't we just move to voluntary recognition, I have a responsibility to say that these staff members should be heard too.
Respectfully, I see a path that is not a protracted conflict with staff who support a union: an election conducted by secret ballot, through a fair, lawful, and transparent process. I believe this fair process is essential for all staff to have a voice. In the last week, we have received messages from staff who have said they are glad that a vote is happening. The strength of any democratic process comes from respecting not only the outcome, but from ensuring everyone has the opportunity to participate freely. This is very aligned with Wikimedia projects and values.
The Foundation has been working actively with CWA and the NLRB to prepare for a vote that we hope to be scheduled very soon.
I am fully committed to whatever staff choose following the results of that process. If the vote is in favor of a union, the Foundation will engage in good faith collective bargaining. We have made this commitment to staff directly and publicly, and I reiterate it here again. If eligible staff choose a union, there will be a union.
I’m also seeing several questions that I’d like to address:
Are staff being allowed to openly garner support for the union?
Yes - Foundation leadership allows pro-union organizing activity on Foundation channels, and staff are also able to meet and hold calls during work hours to organize. There was also pro-union activity in person at Wikimania, including at Foundation staff events where I and other Executive team members were present.
Is the Foundation doing anything to block these efforts?
No, the Foundation is not doing anything to interfere with pro-union outreach. We’ve made clear in multiple staff communications - both written and verbal - that this is a personal choice for eligible staff to make. I’m seeing a lot of worrisome speculation and am saddened by the inaccuracies circulating. As leadership, our responsibility is to ensure everyone has a voice. Managers at all levels have been made aware of their responsibilities to not interfere with union activity and the Foundation continues to remind managers of these obligations.
Why has the Foundation chosen this law firm?
The lawyers at this law firm have a lot of expertise in unions and related laws beyond what you may read in the news. The Foundation received recommendations to work with these specific lawyers from other values-based organizations (non profit/public benefit companies) and because of their familiarity with unionized staff who work in technology. These lawyers have in fact supported work with organizations that now have unions, and they are familiar with the process.
The Foundation doesn’t have in-house counsel that specializes in unionization and that specialization is needed to support staff and ensure all staff (including managers) adhere to the many laws governing the unionization process in the United States. These include laws that protect the right of pro-union staff to conduct outreach.
Throughout the process, we may need to work with a range of different lawyers depending on the expertise needed. This expertise will help the Foundation understand what union representation would actually look like, how it may impact a global workforce, and how to handle the complexities of collective bargaining. Since Wikimedia operates in 39 countries with different legal systems, getting input from experienced external experts is simply good governance and part of leadership's fiduciary responsibilities. It also helps us understand how to better maintain a balanced work experience for our global staff who cannot be part of a US union.
Importantly, these lawyers provide legal analysis and opinion—they don’t decide. As Foundation leadership, we weigh their input against our values and context, and won’t adopt practices that don’t align.
What is the current status of work towards a vote with the NLRB?
The Foundation has been actively engaged in conversations with CWA and the NLRB on the next steps and timeline for a vote. We’ve responded to all requests in a timely manner and hope the vote date will be set shortly. BMeehan-WMF (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The lawyers at this law firm have a lot of expertise in unions and related laws beyond what you may read in the news. The Foundation received recommendations to work with these specific lawyers from other values-based organizations (non profit/public benefit companies) and because of their familiarity with unionized staff who work in technology.
May we know which "values-based organizations" these recommendations came from? It is well known that Littler Mendelson has "a lot of expertise in unions and related laws", if we want to use that euphemism, and I don't think anyone is disputing that.The way you word the choice gives the impression that you have been seeking their counsel for neutral legal analysis, which is especially odd given their one-sided reputation. Why pick a firm renowned for the exact opposite of your stated values, if you will "weigh their input against our values and context, and won't adopt practices that don't align"? Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It also helps us understand how to better maintain a balanced work experience for our global staff who cannot be part of a US union.
Importantly, these lawyers provide legal analysis and opinion—they don’t decide. But if you hire a firm with certain ideological commitments, you understand they're going to take the most extreme positions/give you the most anti-union advice, correct? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The WMF has definitely held captive audience meetings. One happened in March and involved 200+ employees. The fact that the executives keep ignoring this every time I bring it up is very telling. Clovermoss (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@BMeehan-WMF Littler Mendelson certainly has expertise in labor law, the same that Exxon Mobile has expertise in climate-science and Trump has expertise in democratic elections. Your previous experience as a union-member definitely reveals that a majority of your co-workers support unions, it does not reveal anything about your personal values or approach to unionization, but doubling down in Littler Mendelson's defense does. I personally don't care whether you stay as CEO or not, but the fact that you have lost some of your most cautious supporters, including Sohom says everything the community needs to know about your current standing with the community. Shushugah (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's insulting that the WMF thinks endlessly repeating the same talking points that are making people angry will ever be a valid solution. We're sick of the lying, corporate PR statements. Clovermoss (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I hate to say this, but I'm starting to think that they won't care until this becomes a PR disaster for them. At which point the damage would have already been dealt to WMF wikis as well... --ABx11 (she/they) 15:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's already been a PR disaster. The fact that they are forcing themselves into a situation where it worsens exponentially is a crisis of their own making. Clovermoss (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hiring a law firm with such reputation does real damage to the Foundation's reputation. Are you aware of how this looks from the outside?You can write as many reassuring posts as you like, but your actions keep fueling the perception that the Foundation is trying to stop its employees from unionizing. That's a perception you created yourselves. At this point, you shouldn't be surprised if community members start asking whether fundraising banners should say something like, "Your donations are being used to fight the Foundation's own workers." That is exactly the kind of reputational damage this decision invites. Nemoralis (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The foundation really doesn't seem to care they've irrevokably broken the trust of thousands of donors the past few months. Instead we get nonsense like "nostalgia is not a strategy" repeated at us from an outsider telling us what to do and making decisions that are completely antiethical to the movement itself. Clovermoss (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Drama YouTubers could start making analyses of recent WMF actions. I just watched a Logically Answered video about Wikipedia and it's indeed that the donations are being siphoned. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
And yet you didn't have the foresight to see how bad of a look it would be for an organization of this brand and reputation to hire a firm known for union-busting? Sounds like an admission of a gross lack of managerial judgment. Nardog (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think it's practically impossible for her to not know what she's doing here as the Obama administration wanted to make card checks sufficient for a reason. [2] That she's taking the exact opposite stance and claiming it's for the workers is very telling and we won't stand for it. The majority of employees have already made it clear they want a union. Saying "if" is ignoring their agency and clear attempts to make their voices heard, and subjecting them to the strategies of Littler Mendelson to prevent union formation is shameful. Clovermoss (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The lawyers at this law firm have a lot of expertise in unions and related laws beyond what you may read in the news. — And if you ever decide to contract with Palantir, are we supposed to believe the same? It doesn't matter if their lawyers have expertise in how to expertly stall the union recognition process despite the will of the majority as you at the WMF have so clearly demonstrated, their entire reputation and raison d'etre is around union busting, they are one of the most prolific union busting firms, and hiring them for this clearly shows your intent much better than any slyly worded statement that tells nothing. How long were they contracted for? How much have they influenced the decision to go for the drawn out process? How much donor money was spent on Evil Lawyer Company, PC? That all went unanswered. stjn[ru]16:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
At an all staff meeting in March 2026, you and Courtney Bass Sheridan explicitly said that you don’t believe a union is the right fit for an organization like WMF. The hypocrisy of everything is ripe here. Everything you have said above is lip service to the community to hide what all staff have been hearing internally.
The idea that nearly 80% of staff felt pressured to vote yes is absurd. The Foundation leadership continues to dig a deeper hole for itself. Meanwhile there are plenty of labor and employment law firms like Seyfarth who have experience managing both labor and management sides. You guys chose an intentional union busting firm. Own up to it and stop pretending you have taken some moral high road ~2026-42725-11 (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
What a galling response, particularly after my comment above about the WMF's pattern of gaslighting its employees, the community, and the general public. We were not born yesterday. It seems there are two options here:
The WMF hired Littler Mendelson knowing full well its expertise in and reputation for union-busting activities (which seems the most likely to me, given that its own Wikipedia page describes it as a union-busting firm in the lead paragraph — and has since well before this fiasco). In this circumstance, the WMF either:
hired it for this purpose (which, again, seems most likely — one does not typically buy a hammer intending to use it to smooth drywall), OR
genuinely believes that they would be helpful in assisting with the WMF's stated neutral position on unionization because of their so-called "expertise in unions", and does not care whatsoever about the completely predictable response to them hiring a union-busting firm in an already sensitive issue
The WMF hired Littler Mendelson with no knowledge of its expertise in reputation, in which case there was a shocking (and quite literally unbelievable) lack of diligence in hiring (very expensive) corporate legal services.
Moreover, the firm that is known for years as one of the most prolific union busting law firms was hired for their 'expertise' in the midst of active accusations of union busting. If you wanted to show that you're not doing it, hiring them in particular is probably the last way you'd prove that with. stjn[ru]17:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I suspect they've been on the payroll awhile since captive audience meetings were going on months ago. We simply know about it now because of the legal filing. I saw one estimate that they've likely spent $100,000 already in this direction going by their rates. Clovermoss (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I notice that questions about when Littler Mendelson was first retained have gone unanswered as of yet. Adding my voice to the list of people who would like an answer to that question. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@BMeehan-WMF I would like to formally trout you for not only being anti-union, but also incredibly ridiculous with your patently false assertions about Littler Mendelson's neutral union advice. Consider this trout as neutral as Littler Mendelson's advice.
@BMeehan-WMF: You failed to do due diligence when you wrote The lawyers at this law firm have a lot of expertise in unions and related laws beyond what you may read in the news (emphasis added). Please check the Littler Mendelson Wikipedia article. You will discover that Littler Mendelson's union-busting track record is not just "in the news", it is the assessment of the schlolarly community who study this topic.[1][2][3][4] Moreover, Littler Mendelson itself states that it is prepared to assist [clients] 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 ...[5] On the other hand, we, the community of Wikimedians, have done due diligence, per the Wikimedia missions and values. You have not. We have. As Jake Orlowitz has stated, The Foundation has chosen to run the standard playbook against the one community on earth guaranteed to recognize every play, footnote it, and publish the annotated version under a free license. The community cannot save your reputation for you; on the contrary, by resigning now rather than waiting until the reliably sourcedNPOV encyclopedic documentation hits the pages of the world's major media, and later enters the scholarly record, you will minimise the damage to your own career. Boud (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Somehow you don't seem to understand this:
Because you hired the world's #1 union-busting law firm, if the NLRB vote is to unionize, you'll end up at the same place as you would have been if you voluntarily recognized or arbitrated, except you'll have to answer for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees only to lose a significant amount of the WMF's goodwill.
If, on the other hand, the NLRB vote is to not unionize, everyone will think it's because you followed Littler's well-known (see Boud's above comment) union-busting playbook.
Either way, you lose, the WMF loses, we all lose. This is a lose-lose path you've put us on. Pick a better law firm, one with a better reputation, and then at least WMF can credibly claim it's not actually union busting (or at least no longer union busting). Your next move should be a public apology+pivot, otherwise it's just lose-lose all around. Levivich (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Unbelievable. You hire the country's #1 union-busting law firm, and then have the gall to tell us that's not why you hired them? It is unsurprising that we've reached the point where no-one actually believes a word you say any more, including most of the people who were previously supporters of the WMF's stance on this issue. I would suggest that if your next move isn't immediately to remove Littler Mendelson from your employ, your position is no longer tenable. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment Hi. I'm working on an article about the WWU for the fr-wp RAW (local Signpost); you can see the unfinished draft there: fr:Wikipédia:RAW/2026-08-05/WWU; it will be published August 5. If any WMF staff member was pressured to join the WWU or sign the card check, they can contact me at jules.wp[some 'at' there]pm.me to testify anonymously. Regards, — Jules*talk19:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please don’t insult our intelligence with this blatantly bad faith bit of spin. Others have gone over the details. I will just say that this is the sort of thing that makes me embarrassed to have Wikimedia on my resume. People say oh cool, you worked on Wikipedia? They are also excited that the union drive has come so far, and disgusted to hear the WMF response to it. I don’t think any of them will donate while their donations go to a union busting law firm, or for captive audience anti-union staff meetings, and they certainly won’t want to work for a nonprofit that pulls those moves and follows them up with this sort of extended spin campaign/standard anti-union playbook. Why would they trust you to run the business when this is what they’d get? - FHocutt-exWMF ~2026-42883-90 (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I knew that the general anti-union tactics would come once the chips were down, but immediately throwing donor funds at the most obvious anti-union law firm available was a bit unexpected. I perhaps don't share the level of shock as some of my fellow editors, but my disgust is just as palpable. Buddy Gripple (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm late in coming back here, but in short, I agree with the rest of the community that this response falls woefully short of acceptable. You say, I don't view unionization at WMF as an adversarial process... why would I want otherwise?, yet the Foundation has hired a firm whose reputation makes that claim extremely difficult to believe. It is rather like deploying an anti-tank missile launcher pointed at protesters and then claiming that it is merely being used to transport people to the protest grounds. The adversarial nature that this process has taken is literally a result of the Foundation's actions under your leadership.
To engage with the meat of your response, I personally don't buy the argument that enough (over 20%) of WMF's US staff signed the cards under pressure from the organizers of the union to cast doubt on the fact that a majority of staff support the union. However, even taking that into account and assuming good faith in that context, I find it very hard to believe that Littler Mendelson, with their reputation for union-avoidance, was hired purely to provide generic legal advice on labor laws. As GorillaWarfare has said, there are three legitimate possibilities, two of which show extreme neglect towards executive duties (managing the optics of the org, lack of due diligence) and one implies that you misled the movement. I don't know which of these is true, but either way, you've broken the trust we have placed in you as our CEO. -- Sohom (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The lack of transparency here is borderline enraging - no, it is. I was someone who was largely sympathetic to the WMF view of it and was frankly suspicious of the whole pro-WWU movement (at least on enwiki), but even disregarding that, from a purely PR perspective, this is comical. "We support unionization, thus we hired America's most well-known union-buster". Christ. Either pivot, get a different law firm, or stop (and all the preceding ought to involve an apology to the community), not just for moral reasons, but frankly so that you don't sink the whole WMF's internal and external reputation. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I’m seeing a lot of worrisome speculation and am saddened by the inaccuracies circulating.
Guilt rejected. If you're saddened by "inaccuracies circulating," then stop circulating them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think there needs to be more information about the contract between the Wikimedia Foundation and Littler Mendelson. What are the the services the Wikimedia Foundation requested from Littler Mendelson. From my point of view choosing the company is because of the documented activities about union prevention in the past a bad choice. Now it is important to make at least the best out of it and build trust through explaining in detail what Littler Mendelson does for the Wikimedia Foundation. I wish the Wikimedia Foundation publishes the documents it gets from Littler Mendelson, the signed contract as far as possible and publishes a list of meetings related to unionization efforts happening between the announcement of the Wiki Workers United and the end of the vote. If it will be clear there is now influence on employees at the Wikimedia Foundation increasing doubts about a union and give them the free choice in the vote I think there is still a chance to bring it to an good end and rebuild trust. At the moment it seems to me like a situation what could be avoided through choosing another consulting company without bad reputation from the past. Hogü-456 (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Statement by Gregory Varnum
That some staff, including Gregory Varnum, who signed union cards are expending a formal and secret vote holds a fair bit of weight for me.[3]. It appears very likely a union will be formed. I am willing to AGF of the WMF for now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Copying what I said in direct response to Greg's email:
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 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.Clovermoss (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
"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." Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am frankly confused as to how Gregory interpreted the card as a call for a vote. The cards that WMF staff signed are public and unambiguous that they represent support for the union. They do not make any claims that signing the card triggers a subsequent vote. I also would like to push back on this idea that because the WWU is likely to ultimately succeed in unionization, we should not be worried about the WMF's approach here (a sentiment I also keep seeing Jimmy repeat). Just because the WMF is ultimately dragged kicking and screaming into allowing its workers to unionize does not mean we should all drop our concerns about the WMF's tactics, which have thus far included discouraging its employees from unionizing, misrepresenting its stance to the community and public, and hiring a union-busting law firm.GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
AGF and assuming nobody's lying, I can quite easily see how something along the lines of "We don't think the foundation will recognize the movement, even if you do sign these cards, but if enough people sign then we'll be in a good position to get to vote for them to recognize us" can be misinterpreted as "we're signing these to trigger a vote". GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Was told by whom? I hate the passive construction "was told," it obscures who did the telling, which matters a lot. By union organizers? In a written formal letter? Or by some colleague at the water cooler in passing? It matters who did the telling and the context in which it was told.
There are three bullet points on that union card: The first, "I support having union representation ... and designate the Communications Workers of America as my collective bargaining representative" is really hard to misunderstand, that seems extremely clear that you are designating CWA as your representative. The third bullet point is "My support for our union is firm," which again, is hard to understand as "I may change my mind later before the vote." What does "firm" mean?
I'm also confused about how somebody with 25+ years of union experience would not know about voluntary recognition, or misunderstand "designate...as my collective bargaining representative" and "My support for our union is firm" -- "our union" -- as meaning that their mind is not made up yet and they'll decide later whether or not they support or want to join a union.
If Gregory didn't sign the card because he didn't agree with those statements, then that would fit with a desire to decide later, at a secret vote. But then that doesn't explain the idea that someone would sign that card and think it meant they will decide later. Levivich (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, he said over and over again colleagues and the like. You want to interrogate him further, go ahead. But this is someone's work life you want to get into. And attacking him or anyone else, certainly does not suggest either good faith or invite answers identifying others or encourage anyone else to speak. If some here are ready to think he is either an idiot, shill, or a liar, the same will happen to others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's written right on the first version of the card, so that answers that. It's a good thing nobody has interrogated him, attacked him, or called him an idiot, shill, liar, or anything else, cuz that would be totally inappropriate. And Alan: no kidding the unionization drive gets into people's work lives. That is, indeed, the subject of discussion. Levivich (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
What was told to him is not on the union card. And your, 'he has so much experience he misunderstood' speculation is an attack on him personally. The earlier, I put no weight in what he says because of his job is also an attack on him personally. These comments are about him not the union. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, it isn't, it's just follow up questions and expressions of confusion. Even criticism, expressions of doubt, and disbelief, are not personal attacks. Personal attacks are like "you're an asshole," that kind of stuff. Even "I'm doubtful" or "I don't believe you" aren't personal attacks. Anyway, the first union card says explicitly what he said he was told (that signing it doesn't mean you can't change your mind later), and that answers my questions and clears up my confusion. It's very reasonable for him to think that given that's what the first card said. Levivich (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
FWIW, regardless of whether there's an election, it is accurate to say that card signers can change their mind without inherently implying that there is a second process. Those who sign a union card can revoke them before the union requests voluntary recognition. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Fine. I take it you were not trying to attack him personally. But I'm confused then why you begin a long post about what he wrote with "hate", indeed "hate" about him not naming names, presumably to identify others personally. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Until recently - this was the card linked from the union's website, which states: "Your answer to this question represents your interest in unionizing. If you answer yes, that does not mean you have to join the union, and you are free to vote no in the official union vote. You can change your answer to this question at any time before we officially submit the union authorization cards." ~2026-43176-71 (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well that's a completely different card. It still says "If 50% + 1 of eligible employees answer yes, then we are directly authorized to form the union, the voting step is not necessary in this case." But still ... which is the version of the card people actually signed? Or was it both or something? Levivich (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
There were two separate opportunities to sign cards over the course of the last six months. The first card signing wave was while we remained an independent union. Once we reached a supermajority on those cards, we voted as a full group to affiliate with CWA over other choices. Once we joined CWA, we then had to redo our card signing procedure with a new card created by them because our previous card did not contain them as our exclusive bargaining agent. We then reached another supermajority of US signees on the second, CWA-only card.
This is shared to alleviate any confusion on the multiple cards. Hope this contains helpful context. We stand in solidarity with the community and greatly appreciate all of your efforts.
Thanks. It would be awesome if WWU/CWA would issue this explanation in an official statement on the website or something. You seem to be saying that the supermajority was reached twice, and if that's the case, I feel like that should be well-publicized. Also, it would clear up the confusion about people's expectations when signing the cards. (I can see people signing the first version thinking that means they get a vote later, but then there was a vote later in the form of the second version, and that second version is very clear in its text.) (I also wonder if someone could ask Gregory whether they were talking about the first or second version of the card.) Levivich (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
As an advisor to WWU I can confirm that Workersofdoom0101's description of events is accurate. The original Google Forms-hosted card listed WWU alone as negotiating agent, so after WWU-US achieved support of a supermajority of eligible voters and voters subsequently agreed in an overwhelming vote to affiliate with CWA, we had to redo the form and re-collect all the cards with CWA listed as the negotiating agent, which was done via CWA's infrastructure. The supermajority of eligible voters was achieved a second time with the CWA-backed cards, then we requested voluntary recognition, were denied, then filed for the election with the NLRB. brooke (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
↑Blanc, Eric (April 1, 2024). "Worker-led Unionization Sweeps the US". International Labor and Working-Class History (w:Cambridge University Press) 105: 301–302. doi:10.1017/S0147547924000012. Littler Mendelson, the country's most notorious union-busting law firm, sounded the alarm in a 2022 report
↑Logan, John (August 8, 2013). "Employer Opposition in the US: Anti-Union Campaigning from the 1950s". Global Anti-Unionism: Nature, Dynamics, Trajectories and Outcomes. w:Palgrave Macmillan. p. 24. ISBN978-1-137-31906-7. doi:10.1057/9781137319067_2. Retrieved August 2, 2026. Three decades later, the biggest union avoidance law firms in the nation – such as New York-based Jackson Lewis (which was created by former employees of Labor Relations Associates (LRA)), Chicago-based Seyfrath Shaw and San Francisco-based Littler Mendelson – all boasted several hundred lawyers specialising in the area, with dozens of offices throughout the country, and sometimes even an international presence.
↑Walker, Abraham (November 25, 2024). "Third Time's the Charm: Assessing the UAW's Decade-Long Struggle for a Union at Volkswagen". w:New Labor Forum34 (1): 23–31. doi:10.1177/10957960241299337. 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.
↑Appleby, Gavin S. (March 2, 2007). "The Employee Free Choice Act: It's More than Just a Misleading Name". Littler Mendelson. Archived from the original on August 2, 2026. Retrieved August 2, 2026. Littler Mendelson is prepared to assist you in regard to all the above union prevention tools ... If you would like information on our state of the art union avoidance training programs ...
Wikimedia Café message distribution
Latest comment: 16 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! To continue receiving announcements about the Wikimedia Café on your user talk page, please add your preferred user subscription page(s) to Global message delivery/Targets/Wikimedia Café. This change only affects user talk page deliveries, and hopefully you will appreciate the customization options. If you don't subscribe a user page then you won't receive further bulk announcements regarding the Café on your user talk page, although you can always subscribe later.
wikimedia.org. BMeehan-WMF (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support resignation BMeehan-WMF from your position as CEO of WMF. In Littler Mendelson's own words, it is a union busting firm: Littler Mendelson is prepared to assist you in regard to all the above union prevention tools ... If you would like information on our state of the art union avoidance training programs ... As CEO of WMF, you hold political responsibility for the decision to use a union-busting firm against the vast majority of WMF US employees, irresponsibly spending WMF funds and wasting time, and adding unnecessary stress to WMF employees already subject to long-term bullying. WWU is strongly supported by the Wikimedia movement. As Sohom Datta stated above, Our movement is built on the pillars of transparency and honesty, and we expect the same from our leadership. Misleading the movement about your stance on unionization and (mis)using donor funds to retain a union-avoidance law firm for the purpose of avoiding voluntary union recognition is a serious breach of trust that the movement has placed on you and runs counter to the values we hold dear. I agree that CBasssherizen-WMF, as Chief People Officer, should resign too. Boud (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
Comment Hi. I'm working on an article about the WWU for the fr-wp RAW (local Signpost); you can see the unfinished draft there: fr:Wikipédia:RAW/2026-08-05/WWU; it will be published August 5. If any WMF staff member was pressured to join the WWU or sign the card check, they can contact me at jules.wp[some 'at' there]pm.me to testify anonymously. Regards, — Jules* talk 19:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)