Is it time for a SE Volunteer Labor Union or similar organization?

Why are you bringing the law into this? A "union" for us, the SE users, would just mean that we get together and coordinate organized action. That isn't covered by any law, no more than getting together with a bunch of friends to organize a party would be. And, in any case, it couldn't be covered by any law since we're all in different countries.

So sure, if you're willing to start something like this, go for it. Just don't think of it as a labor union. We're not employees, and labor law doesn't apply. All you're talking about is some sort of (presumably) off-site organization of concerned SE users who can coordinate action in the hope of effecting change in the Stack Exchange network. I see no reason why not, it might even work.

I'm on the fence about whether a traditional labor union is the right call here. @Terdon makes some good points above, and there may be consequences to, e.g., getting an outside union to help us organize.

I fully support organizing in some manner, though. As much support as the community has shown, e.g., Monica, there seems to be a very strong sense among power users and moderators that we somehow have no power. Individually, we have very little power, and, as the letter states:

We recognise that Stack Exchange is in no way obliged to take our input. We know that we are guests in the home of a private company. We don’t own the platform, and while we want to help to steer the ship, we don’t have the right to determine how it is governed.

Organized, however, we do not have to settle for this. We are Stack Exchange. The software and servers are obviously important, but we own and moderate the content. Yes, there are millions of users who contribute and are unaware of the community issues, but the power users and moderators control the quality of those contributions, and quite literally control what is in public view on the software and servers that SE owns. An organized community that is willing to demonstrate our power would be a force indeed.

I'm not advocating for defacing content. I am encouraging our community to realize the extent of our power. SE cannot operate without the cooperation of the power users and moderators. They are fully dependent on us, our goodwill and support.

As soon as you start to try and collect union dues ...

... your proposed union folds like a bad hand in poker.

There are a variety of ways to gather together people of a similar inclination to act collectively. For example, political parties. Collectives. The Rotary Club. Labor unions are peculiar to a labor force, or a broad labor category with common interests. (The Teamsters, for example).

Volunteering one's time and effort with SO or SE does not fit that model, so try a different model for collective activity of like-minded people. As the gravel voiced sergeant in the cavalry once explained to a couple of greenhorns ...

I don't care how big of a shoe horn you use, that horse won't wear a pair of combat boots. Get him a horse shoe that fits!

I agree with the other answers that a "conventional" union isn't a good fit.

But then, I suggested something similar some days back. The current "status quo" seems is inappropriate.

The point is: the moderator community is "small enough" to organize itself to really talk with "one voice".

Think about it: to be a moderator, you have to convince the community to vote you in. You intend to put in your private time. And when you show up at SE Inc. there is only talk about your duties and what the company expects from you?!

That needs to change. The moderators should ask for a very clear set of mutual rights and guarantees!

Instead of a "Union" we should look to join or create an International Network of Associations of Users of Online Platforms.

Organizing by country instead of by Stack Exchange sites might be more convenient.

1. There are many sites with very low activity in which the few active users might not be from the same country; hence, it might be difficult for them to achieve a critical mass and make synergy.
2. There might be more chances to take advantage of other affinities and the opportunity to share resources and coordinate efforts.
3. Some countries have organizations and laws that could help with guidance, advice, and resources. Still, they are focused on providing help or have restrictions to provide service / support to citizens or use the resources locally.

I mention the above because I found a document from the government guiding volunteer associations a few moments ago and because I have been collecting examples of successful volunteer groups. Usually, they have chapters by country, i.e., groups of civic hackers like Hacking Health.

We might follow the example of international organizations like the International Organization for Standardization, ISO. They have representatives of the Standardization bodies of each participating country. They publish different types of documents that each country publishes locally according to the local workings, aka the process with output, which are laws, regulations, agreements, etc., that the local society institutions endorse.

There are more examples of International collaboration. Not all countries should actively participate, but the organization's goal is that the outcomes benefit all countries.

The association could start with informal groups, but each local group should set as priority:

1. Get an identity
2. Be autonomous
3. Have recognition of their existence according to group goals to achieve and the local circumstances, preferably at the country level. For some purposes, having an autonomous point of contact might be enough, i.e., the last Moderation Strike used GitHub to publish an open letter, then use a Discord server. In some countries, it's sufficient to have two members to get recognition, i.e., in Mexico, for specific purposes, it might be necessary to create an "Asociación Civil" to organize a conference that will have sponsors by sponsor's policies. This requires at least two members (I need to review this).

For a long time, I feared that messing with the law would make things too complicated and bureaucratic in the worst sense. Also, I used to think organizing Meta Stack Exchange users would be so complex that it might not be worth all the work this could require; however, several things are happening this year and, more recently, have happened directly to me that have made me look at things differently. So, I'm deeply reviewing my systems of beliefs and what makes me autonomous and evaluating my relations with everyone and with everything.

This is relevant because I found this post as part of my recent journey through this quest. Specifically, I'm looking at how to explain to the Stake Exchange stakeholders that, from my perspective in this personal state, I feel that my metacognition was boosted and that my fears are dimmed that the Meta Stack Exchange posts show an unhealthy condition for a network of communities of volunteers looking to build libraries of questions and answers moderated by themselves.

I feel a solid impulse to shout that we should embrace the goal of creating "this thing" to bring us, those who have at least in common to have a Stack Exchange account, a viable system in the sense that Stafford Beer defined the concept that made him develop the Viable System Model (VSM). A derived concept is Management cybernetics, which refers to using the VSM model in organizations and management.

I understand that VSM might not be accessible for people not familiar with the work of Stafford Beer and Cybernetics. Still, I'm pretty sure that this will be helpful for the analysis and design of systems as this term is understood in systems thinking, not for helping on tasks like allowing a user to write a question, and will not help to predict the return on investment. However, it would help to understand how decisions should be taken on complex systems, like the Stack Exchange Network if it wants to be perceived and handled as a system of autonomous online communities.

In a way, we have already organized in a union of users who know and care enough about the sites that we frequent Meta, and we already have elected moderators, like we would have trade union representatives that we trust to speak for us. But the "laws" of this digital "country" (site) don't grant us as much power as actual trade unions in actual countries have. This is the "country" we live in, I don't expect we could cause the status quo to change in a reasonable time frame. It would be quicker to move to another "country".

The post currently has 16 upvotes. So there is some support for this proposal.

There is no indication that any group of paid employees or volunteer employees of Stack Exchange (SE) are excluded by the "National Labor Relations Act"

(3) The term "employee" shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Act [this subchapter] explicitly states otherwise,

In fact most of us would fall in the category of "professional employee", it seems self evident that all Moderators fall into this category.

(12) The term "professional employee" means--

(a) any employee engaged in work (i) predominantly intellectual and varied in character as opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical, or physical work; (ii) involving the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance; (iii) of such a character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time; (iv) requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in an institution of higher learning or a hospital, as distinguished from a general academic education or from an apprenticeship or from training in the performance of routine mental, manual, or physical processes; or

(b) any employee, who (i) has completed the courses of specialized intellectual instruction and study described in clause (iv) of paragraph (a), and (ii) is performing related work under the supervision of a professional person to qualify himself to become a professional employee as defined in paragraph (a).

We have the right to self organize

RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES

Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].

Our employer (SE) is prohibited from interfering with our attempts to organize

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];

But it does appear that SE is also prohibited from providing support, so an Area 51 proposal to create a site, is probably not feasible. But general posts about the union, would seem to be allowed.

(2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 6 [section 156 of this title], an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay;

https://www.nlrb.gov/how-we-work/national-labor-relations-act

I am in no way an expert on this topic. If you can expand on or clarify any points, please post a new answer.

I guess the next step would be to find a meeting hall.