including those laid off, since some are still hoping to find jobs elsewhere at the WMF, and others are depending on severance pay
Am I too european to understand this? If they “get jobs elsewhere at the WMF” this is not a layoff, is it? I know the US has nearly no worker protections, so maybe that makes it a layoff. Do they need to interview for these positions again?
If this were something other than Community Tech, maybe I could convince myself it’s all just a coincidence. But the WMF has been on a generally upward trajectory at avoiding decisions that will piss off the entire community. “Don’t disband CommTech” might as well be the "don’t mess with the pancreas"of WMF governance. The only explanation for the WMF doing this—not just reörganizing but outright laying off the team—is that they are so determined to prevent the union from becoming official that they are willing to risk the massive community blowback (which, from a corporate-brain point of view, is a greater downside than the five people left jobless).
That paragraph I don’t understand. Why is union busting the only explanation?
From one of the comments of that Reddit thread:
the union was apparently formed exactly 90 days prior to the layoff announcement; under california state law (where they are located) “a termination within 90 days of protected union activity creates a rebuttable presumption that the termination was illegal retaliation”
I think that is an interesting detail here, though I have not bothered to go through the sources for this.
some are still hoping to find jobs elsewhere at the WMF
American translation: what happens here is you’re officially laid off. You then have to find an open position within the company and apply for it just like anyone else would. In theory, you’re supposed to have an easier time and the company will say they’ll help you. In theory. You still don’t have a job though and none of that is a guarantee. Most of us have sent out 2,000+ applications and get rejected regularly even from within our own companies. This can also succeed in firing you for a higher salary and hiring you back for less because that’s all there is. Or as we’ve seen, switching you from a full time position to a contract one, which does not require the employer to provide you with benefits like healthcare.
That paragraph I don’t understand. Why is union busting the only explanation?
Similar to what may have occurred at Rockstar games, to form a union we need to reach a certain percentage of employees to sign on and form it. If that number was being approached (all of this is normally done outside the company and in secret which makes it all the harder to organize) then, if suddenly 100 employees were laid off and don’t technically work at the company anymore, then they can’t sign on to form the union anymore. Especially if they’re able to lay off the leaders and organizers of the burgeoning union, this is incredibly damaging to organization efforts. So the paragraph is saying that an actual re-org doesn’t make sense, but it makes sense if the layoffs were attempting to remove individuals to prevent the official formation of the union. Which, while the company might say they’ll help you find a role within the company, if they suspect they were part of the union, itçs relatively easy to blacklist them.
the union was apparently formed exactly 90 days prior to the layoff announcement; under california state law (where they are located) “a termination within 90 days of protected union activity creates a rebuttable presumption that the termination was illegal retaliation”
Another reason it feels likely that the goal was preventing the union rather than a reorg. And while potentially true, it would have to be argued in court. And here in America, we don’t have public civil defenders to automatically be assigned if someone doesn’t have one or anything (ThAt WoUlD bE sOcIaLiSm!), so the “wrongful termination” suit would need lawyers, which are very expensive. And people without jobs receiving severance typically don’t have lots of money to pay lawyers, which I’m sure a corporation with lawyers on retainer, especially union busting ones, are aware of this.
Hope that helps explain our capitalist shithole a bit better.
My employer does this too. It is a layoff technically but employees are given the opportunity to interview for another position in the company if they want to stay. If it was a “restructuring” the employees would’ve been moved to another department and possibly a new role without their consent.
Find this reference on Reddit.
Am I too european to understand this? If they “get jobs elsewhere at the WMF” this is not a layoff, is it? I know the US has nearly no worker protections, so maybe that makes it a layoff. Do they need to interview for these positions again?
That paragraph I don’t understand. Why is union busting the only explanation?
From one of the comments of that Reddit thread:
I think that is an interesting detail here, though I have not bothered to go through the sources for this.
American translation: what happens here is you’re officially laid off. You then have to find an open position within the company and apply for it just like anyone else would. In theory, you’re supposed to have an easier time and the company will say they’ll help you. In theory. You still don’t have a job though and none of that is a guarantee. Most of us have sent out 2,000+ applications and get rejected regularly even from within our own companies. This can also succeed in firing you for a higher salary and hiring you back for less because that’s all there is. Or as we’ve seen, switching you from a full time position to a contract one, which does not require the employer to provide you with benefits like healthcare.
Similar to what may have occurred at Rockstar games, to form a union we need to reach a certain percentage of employees to sign on and form it. If that number was being approached (all of this is normally done outside the company and in secret which makes it all the harder to organize) then, if suddenly 100 employees were laid off and don’t technically work at the company anymore, then they can’t sign on to form the union anymore. Especially if they’re able to lay off the leaders and organizers of the burgeoning union, this is incredibly damaging to organization efforts. So the paragraph is saying that an actual re-org doesn’t make sense, but it makes sense if the layoffs were attempting to remove individuals to prevent the official formation of the union. Which, while the company might say they’ll help you find a role within the company, if they suspect they were part of the union, itçs relatively easy to blacklist them.
Another reason it feels likely that the goal was preventing the union rather than a reorg. And while potentially true, it would have to be argued in court. And here in America, we don’t have public civil defenders to automatically be assigned if someone doesn’t have one or anything (ThAt WoUlD bE sOcIaLiSm!), so the “wrongful termination” suit would need lawyers, which are very expensive. And people without jobs receiving severance typically don’t have lots of money to pay lawyers, which I’m sure a corporation with lawyers on retainer, especially union busting ones, are aware of this.
Hope that helps explain our capitalist shithole a bit better.
Ah, ok. That exlains it. It’s really a shitty move. I guess no CEO or other high up manager in the US would do this differently. What a shit
My employer does this too. It is a layoff technically but employees are given the opportunity to interview for another position in the company if they want to stay. If it was a “restructuring” the employees would’ve been moved to another department and possibly a new role without their consent.