Good, even though the union strategy of getting a slice of the cake while enabling processes that will screw over workers everywhere else can be debated.

when*

because these statements are instrumental to building power. They are not a draft of a negotiation proposal. They are a galvanizing message for workers, not a formal demand. Without power, formal demands are pointless. To build power, clarity, concreteness and directness beats idealism, rigour and formalism every day.

I’ve been in tech labor organizing for 8 years at this point. I know written documents matter pretty much nothing for organizing, let alone tech workers organizing. And yes, tech workers need a simple language.

The statement you’ve written is very good to argue on the internet, but it closes any avenue for picking winnable issues in the real world. If the original one sets a clear, achievable goal (canceling a new contract), the one you wrote prevents any kind of realistic demand and sets an unachievable goal for a newly formed union.

If you speak a language workers don’t understand, you increase the cognitive load and lower interest and participation. It’s a trade-off and it’s an ineliminabile part of the game. Being correct and being useful are two different things

It’s labor organizing, not intellectual engagement. The point is to build power in the company, not argue about vocabulary. Words are instrumental, they are not the goal.