[flagged]
I am inclined to assume that you are paid to oppose unions online.
Also your recent comment history consists entirely of angry contrarianism.
Check comment history. Does not seem to engage in productive dialogue.
Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is some paid shill. Like... really? Hilarious. Grow up.
Whether it's true or not, making dubious arguments from a relatively new online account is actually indistinguishable from trolling. Your replies are not helping the matter.
> [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward.
Honestly, that was the point where I stopped reading and hid this story.
They used a non-secret election! Fuck them tbh. Jimmy Wales is entirely right here.
The claim that the Foundation totally supports the right to unionize but wants to hold a secret election would be a lot more credible if this happened before the workers had a supermajority (!) of signatures collected.
They followed a process. Secret ballots are also an established process. From your own link:
> Since the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) became law in 1935, card check has been an alternative to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) election process.
My understanding is that a secret ballot election is actually the more common scenario.
> The claim that the Foundation totally supports the right to unionize but wants to hold a secret election would be a lot more credible if this happened before the workers had a supermajority (!) of signatures collected.
Do you really envision a situation where a supermajority of signatures were collected from fully non-coerced and well-informed employees, but some union-busting magic is going to cause them to lose a secret ballot election?
I envision this because I've seen the same strategy used elsewhere myself (in the unionization context) and delaying to wear down opponents is a common strategy (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay,_Deny,_Defend)
> They followed a process.
Both of the processes require collecting signatures in the same way, the difference is what happens afterwards and when. Even for the election they would have to collect signatures, so claiming that collecting the signatures was somehow "wrong" for not being a secret vote suggests either a lack of understanding or intentionally trying to muddy the waters.
"Can you prove that only employees voted in this?" "Can you prove there was no ballot stuffing? "
I am not generally pro-union, I believe it has it's place but have also seen downsides but I have seen these games played out before.
To be honest, they should prove that only employees voted and they should prove there was no ballot stuffing. That's just baseline competence.
It's all fear mongering around a very balanced response from the WMF.
Could they engage in union-busting? Sure. Did they? No.