| ▲ | armchairhacker a day ago |
| Wikipedia's side > [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward. This process protects individual choice and ensures that any outcome reflects the collective will of those eligible to participate. > [Jimmy Wales:] One of the problems with the process so far is that it was not secret and we have heard from some staff members that they felt pressured because the organizers would know how they decided. That isn't a great process and it goes against our movement's values quite badly to have people in a situation where they are pressured into something one way or the other. Counter-argument > The community response to the WMF statement has mostly been one of dismay, with fears that the Foundation will use the time gap between now and the secret ballot to discourage employees from union involvement, using union busting methods as described humorously in an episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver The episode is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8, a transcript is at https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/tv-series/union-busting-last-w... --- Honestly, I'm on Wikipedia's side: there should be a true secret ballot. It should be soon and I'd be fine seeing the union win. Sure Wikipedia can use threats and propaganda in the meantime (so can Wiki Workers United), but that is less coercive than a public ballot. |
|
| ▲ | jordanb a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Wikipedia has to say that people were being coerced to sign the cards in order to activate the NLRB secret balloting process. The "normal" thing (as expected by the law) is the company recognizes the union once there are enough cards signed. The secret balloting process is a second phase activated only if the company alleges that the cards were signed under duress. Wikipedia is saying they believe that people were coerced into signing these cards in order to activate the NLRB process. They have to say that the cards are improper or recognize the union. |
| |
|
| ▲ | bawolff 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > One of the problems with the process so far is that it was not secret As far as i can tell, this is a straight up lie. Union organizers might know, but legally they are required to keep who signs a union card secret. If voluntary recognition happened, as far as i understand, part of the process would be for a neutral third party to verify the signed statements. So if someone was pressured, the verification person would call them up and ask if they really meant to sign, and they could just say no. [Ianal, this is just what the pro union people are saying on wikipedia] |
|
| ▲ | spopejoy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Honestly, I'm on Wikipedia's side: there should be a true secret ballot. Mission accomplished for Jimmy Wales then, "aw shucks I like unions but there's this one thing about a process that has worked for literally every other organization effort. Wouldn't want those volunteer organizers intimidating workers!" C.f. Dario Amodei: "I LOVE open weight models, they just need to pass this little safety test, who doesn't want safety?" |
|
| ▲ | doginasuit a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I read Jimmy's statement and it comes across as exactly the kind of leadership you would want in this situation, whether you are a pro-union employee or not. An employer has a legitimate interest in making sure their employees are not intimidated into some action they don't want to do. At the same time, he is willing to recognize and welcome the union if that's what the vote reflects. |
|
| ▲ | estearum a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yeah for the counterargument like... if you were afraid of tipping your hand, maybe you should've done it the correct way (anonymously) the first time? |
| |
| ▲ | jordanb a day ago | parent | next [-] | | They are doing it the correct way. In order to get union recognition you need to get enough people in the company to sign union cards. This is the normal way to create a union. Companies argued that some people could be coerced and so the NLRB created a "two step" process in case the company protests the creation of the union. Basically if the company says "we don't think these cards were signed under proper circumstances" the NLRB would come in and hold a secret ballot. That is basically what's happening here, and "wikipedia's side" is actually them reading a statement written by their lawyers in order to activate the NLRB balloting process. The real reason why the companies like to invoke the secret ballot process is it takes a long time, and this gives them a lot of time to fight the union, fire the organizers, and "convince" employees to withdraw their support. | | |
| ▲ | estearum a day ago | parent [-] | | Interesting! Wasn't aware of this. Given that they know the company may invoke NLRB's process and require a second anonymous ballot anyway, can organizers not start with an anonymous one? | | |
| ▲ | jordanb a day ago | parent | next [-] | | No. There's basically a chicken and egg problem. It is not illegal to discuss unions in the workplace or to pledge support for a union. But the "union" has no standing to do anything other than talk to people. So to get a union you first need people to talk to their colleagues, and if the people they're talking to seem agreeable, get them to sign a card saying that they would like to be in a union. Once they have enough of these cards that have been signed by people who have spoken with union representatives and pledged their support for a union, they can go to the company and use the cards as proof that the union has broad support. The idea that people are compelled to sign union cards is a bit of a fiction. Signing a union card is an act of bravery because it paints a target on your back especially if the union drive fails. It's documentary evidence that you're a troublemaker. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | In fact, Wikimedia has already fired a team that had several members heading the unionization effort. [1] This is classic union busting behavior. Of course they won't say the reason they let the team go was because of unionization efforts because that's illegal. But they certainly will point to vague reasons. This sort of firing decision is also a key part of why the union started in the first place [2]. Apparently Wikimedia has a bad habit of just letting people go, playing favoritism, and breaking promises to employees. [1] https://www.heise.de/en/news/Unionization-at-Wikimedia-Commu... [2] https://wikiworkersunited.org/focus-areas/ | |
| ▲ | beowulfey a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We just went through institution of a union at my employer for one type of employee. The organizers did exactly this, and as an observer/affected party it was a little coercive. But you know it has to be, because people always prefer the status quo. It takes a lot of work to unionize and it ultimately never felt forced because we all wanted it. But man, the pressure to sign and put your name down was high, and BECAUSE there were no protections, definitely unnerving. | |
| ▲ | estearum a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm sure the company pressure is far, far more salient in 99.9% of cases than the unionization pressure, but I think for any collective agreement like this we oughta shoot to eliminate as many sources of coercion as possible. I can definitely imagine certain industries where it would definitely paint a target on your back to oppose unionization. Seems like the solution is to just allow ad-hoc anonymous votes upfront? I appreciate you walking me through this though! | | |
| ▲ | anigbrowl a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but then the company complains that something it doesn't like is being organized in its property (the workplace) using its resources (employee time, space and electricity for the vote collection/tabulation etc). Plus the people trying to organize the secret ballot are easy to identify. It's considered perfctly normal for owners of a company to delegate their power and responsibilities to managers, but whenever employees try to delegate things ao tunion 9/10 times the owners scream and cry and allege dark conspiracies. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cool_dude85 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, you need the signed cards to take to the NLRB and get an anonymous election. | | |
| ▲ | jordanb a day ago | parent [-] | | The process actually ends up working like this: 1) you sign the cards 2) the company alleges that the cards were signed under duress and people didn't actually want to sign. This is a necessary step in order to invoke the NLRB process 3) this puts everything on hold for the months it typically takes for the NLRB to act, allowing the company time to engage in anti-union activities. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cool_dude85 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's not how it works. You need the signed cards to hold an election. Employers can, seeing a large majority publically willing to sign the cards before they have any solid protections, choose to forgo the election on the basis that a majority of employees were willing to sign. If the only reason WMF had to request a formal election was to allow secret ballot, they would not be hiring union busting law firms. The point of such firms is to legally and illegally discourage union membership - the penalties for doing so illegally are comically small. | | |
| ▲ | jordanb a day ago | parent [-] | | It's not that the company can forgo the election. The company must allege that the cards are improper in order to activate the NLRB secret balloting process. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent [-] | | Has any company ever not alleged it? | | |
| ▲ | jordanb a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Some do, but if you hire a union busting law firm the first thing they have you do is read a statement alleging impropriety with the union cards, in order to initiate the NLRB process. Companies aren't required to present any evidence other than "we have reason to believe" so it's pretty much a ritual at this point. | |
| ▲ | cool_dude85 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, but it's uncommon enough that doing so is called "voluntary recognition" of the union, acknowledging that the expected process is to file the cards and then do the NLRB election. |
|
|
|
|
