Workers at Code for America began forming a union in the fall of 2020 with the goal of improving working conditions to increase retention and ensure the sustainability of the organization. Three years later, CWU accomplished these goals with a contract that creates more job security and gives workers a voice in the ongoing direction of the organization’s work. Most importantly, the contract helps ensure that Code for America will continue to meet its goal of improving the delivery of government services to the people who need them most.

“Members of CWU work tirelessly to help improve the social safety net for everyone; this contract is a safety net for us. We are excited about what we won in this contract, and I am also proud that we were able to hardcode Code for America’s values into the contract, from giving staff a role in making decisions that will impact them to ensuring criminal background checks will not put anyone’s employment at risk,” shared Matt Bernius, a principal researcher at Code for America since March 2020 and a member of the bargaining committee.

Code For America voluntarily recognized CWU in October 2021, and contract negotiations began in March 2022. After several starts and stops, a lengthy NLRB hearing, internal and external campaigning, and a significant lay-off, CWU members leveraged their collective power by standing in solidarity to make this contract victory possible. Together, the workers of Code for America held the organization accountable to its stated values, and in doing so, set a standard at the organization for what it means when workers have a seat at the table.

“I am so proud of my fellow union members and how hard we fought for this first contract. While it certainly was not an easy process, this contract ultimately will allow us to heal and recruit and retain the talent needed to uphold the mission and best serve our communities,” said Tanya Grinblat, an associate director of development at Code for America since 2020 and a member of the bargaining committee.

In doing so, Code for America abandoned our stated values of listening first, acting with intention, and including those who have been excluded. Our leadership did not include our laid-off coworkers in any kind of collaborative process that showed them compassion, trust, or dignity—and management shirked their legal obligation to negotiate with our union over the effects of layoffs. Instead, coworkers who have dedicated years to this work felt traumatized by a sudden loss of their income, benefits, and connection to colleagues, clients, and partners. These included workers who were about to go on sabbatical, were on medical leave, and those who had spent countless hours bargaining for better support and protections for all workers at CfA. Management’s actions made our hard-working colleagues—who are parents, caretakers, and breadwinners—feel disposable. In some cases, our coworkers were cut off from their accounts while they were scrambling to hand off the tasks necessary to ensure our clients are supported, and for others, this happened before they were able to.

Our clients and partners will suffer as a result of this haphazard process. Let’s break down exactly how Code for America failed the litmus test for human-centeredness.

1. Leadership made this decision in a silo, without any collaboration from people who would be impacted.

One of Code for America’s core values is to listen first. In this process, leadership made no attempt to listen to workers—even those managers whose direct reports were laid off didn’t know this was coming. The first time staff beyond senior leadership was made aware of the impending layoffs was two hours in advance of people’s terminations, right before the office closed for a four-day weekend. Laid off staff were immediately removed from workplace accounts, including communication forums. Some employees were locked out of their computers before even receiving a layoff email. While impacted staff have been offered optional 1:1 meetings with the leadership team to help discuss next career steps, no exit interviews to solicit organizational feedback have been offered at this time. Code for America proudly uplifts the need for trauma-informed response when serving our clients. But despite the abundance of internal knowledge and resources on the subject, individual staff were not consulted on how to best execute these layoffs in order to reduce harm. Code for America senior leadership actively chose a process that has caused trauma to current and former staff.

2. Leadership weaponized our clients’ well-being as a justification for laying our coworkers off, drawing an arbitrary division between clients and workers.

Another core value of Code for America is to include those who have been excluded, with a focus on communities that have been underserved and marginalized through forces such as systemic racism and oppression. Leadership has made it clear that employment at Code for America implies that individuals are no longer subjected to these forces. In one bargaining meeting, a Code for America management committee member said that “Code for America employees aren’t marginalized.” We disagree with this oversimplified, callous take. Unfortunately, gainful employment at a mission-driven organization, no matter how great, is not enough on its own to fully combat the nuanced and intersectional systemic issues that exist within our country.

Through this layoff, we have not seen the inclusion of those most often excluded. Painfully, this means many of our laid off coworkers will have to return to access our country’s social safety net and depend on the very services that they helped build during their time at Code for America. We have collected the following information from those who lost their jobs:

3. Leadership selectively chose which parts of our unfinished contract to honor and which to ignore.

In Code for America’s public layoff announcement, which was released minutes after their internal announcement and before individual emails had been sent, the organization stated: “Although we have yet to finalize our first-ever Collective Bargaining Agreement, the tentative agreement on layoffs and severance helped us develop an equitable process and a meaningful severance package, including extending health care benefits.”

Over the past two years, Code for America management and CFA Workers United have engaged in a bargaining over their first-ever Collective Bargaining Agreement. Throughout this process we have reached several tentative agreements, including one on layoffs and severance. While a tentative agreement is not yet legally binding, it is meant to signify agreement and establish procedures between the two parties. While Code for America leadership did provide the minimum agreed-upon terms of severance and health coverage, they did not follow the entirety of the tentative agreement.

Noticeably, our tentative agreement suggests a minimum of 30 days advance notice for staff layoffs. In good faith, our Union did agree to include language that allowed for some flexibility to this notice period based on what is practicable (e.g. an sudden and unforeseen loss of a large grant). Management indicated that for the last two weeks they were meeting to figure out what to do about their financial shortfall, and our union was not included in this process. Whether or not we had reached a tentative agreement on layoffs, Code for America management is still legally obligated to bargain with our Union around the terms of severance and health coverage.

4. Leadership is moving fast and breaking things.

Founder and former Executive Director of Code for America, Jenn Pahlka, has been known to reject the popular tech industry saying of “move fast and break things.” When you do that in civic tech, the things you break are people. Code for America leadership’s recent actions have broken at least 35 people—and this doesn’t begin to account for the family members that depended on our impacted staff’s wages and health insurance, nor the clients who were directly working with these staff.

Those impacted, including those laid off and those who remain, are still reeling from the abruptness of this decision and process.The speed at which this happened seems to directly contradict Code for America’s statement that: “Consistent with our values, Code for America will treat those impacted by this change with dignity and respect.” The health of our overall work and clients will undoubtedly suffer from the immediate and mass loss of valuable, knowledgeable, and skilled workers who were given no opportunity to create transition plans or knowledge bases.

When pushed on why space was not given for a proper transition to minimize client impact and organizational disruption, senior leadership stated they had an obligation to protect personal identifying information (PII); however, as is evident by this year’s sunsetting of the Brigade Network, we know it is possible to mitigate these risks while giving employees the appropriate amount of time to transition, or end, their work. These actions have led to a diminishing sense of safety, trust, and morale at our organization.

5. Leadership is not taking accountability.

Thus far, senior leadership at Code for America has failed to take any accountability for their recent actions. They have consistently used the passive voice, saying things like “layoffs forced by financial projections” and “staff impacted by layoffs.” No member of senior leadership is being laid off for their gross mismanagement of organizational resources—in fact, there are plans to hire additional senior positions in the near future, including at least three director positions, a Chief Revenue Officer, and a Chief Product Officer. This seems consistent with our organization’s aggressive hiring already this year, through which 30 new people have been added to the staff. And, despite early revenue projections, leadership still approved an upcoming (mandatory) in-person all-staff meeting in San Francisco, to the tune of around $500,000.

Typically when a staff member at Code for America makes mistakes, shows poor performance, or underdelivers they are met with post-mortem project meetings, performance improvement plans (PIPs), or in rare circumstances, are terminated. We are left wondering why those who mismanaged organizational growth, failed to make sound financial decisions, and approved aggressive hiring are facing no consequences while 35 individuals unjustly lost their jobs.

Sometimes good people make mistakes and can be given the benefit of positive intent. If we apply that here, we are reminded of the very commitments leadership shared with our union across the bargaining table only a few months ago: “It is essential to take responsibility for and address the impact of our words or actions, regardless of intent. Denying the impact of something said by focusing on intent is often more destructive than the initial interaction.”

What’s next for Code for America?

At Code for America, we talk a lot about showing what’s possible. Code for America management is showing what’s possible when we spend our money on a law firm with a reputation for union busting, racism, sexism, and homophobia rather than engaging in the participatory democracy our workers are organizing for. Management is showing what’s possible when they ignore power dynamics and sow fear to silence dissent, rather than encouraging the tough conversations that would require them to take accountability for ways this organization could be better living our values. Management is showing what’s possible when an organization’s mission is only applied selectively — when it is a hobby rather than a value, and one that can be abandoned when following it proves to be inconvenient.

We are profoundly disappointed in Code for America leadership. We believe in what Code for America can be, and we will continue to organize to hold Code for America leaders accountable to our mission, our values, our partners, our clients, and our coworkers.

The manner in which Code for America management announced company-wide layoffs shows that they have abandoned their commitment to our organizational values, our mission, and our staff.

Code for America CEO Amanda Rentería joined bargaining today to announce to our unit that management had decided on a 17% reduction in staff across the board. In real terms, this means 35 of our colleagues are being immediately laid off. That’s 35 people with families they need to take care of. That’s 35 people with rent due tomorrow. That’s 35 people who were given less than two hours notice that they no longer have a job, who were informed of this via email immediately before a four-day holiday weekend¹.

Now, we’ve [grown accustomed to news of tech layoffs][tech-layoffs], but this one came as a shock to nearly everyone in the organization. In the past months, at the bargaining table, through external company communications, and during company-wide meetings, we have continued to hear how well Code for America is doing in executing its mission. Today’s announcement proved a lack of transparency at a mission-driven organization where the most frequent word used by leadership is “collaborative.”

Management has taken no responsibility

These layoffs are ostensibly for financial reasons, so that Code for America can ensure its sustainability into 2024. When a member of our collective bargaining committee asked if anyone from CxO or the management bargaining committee would be laid off, CEO Amanda Rentería said no, and that they were in fact hiring another C-suite position. When asked on followup if leadership bore any responsibility for the gross mismanagement of Code for America’s resources, she replied that “we’re taking responsibility right now by sharing this with you all.”

Sharing information is not the same as taking responsibility. We are disgusted by Code for America management’s shirking of their collective responsibility to our mission, our clients, our partners, and our staff members. Never once, in their email announcing layoffs or during bargaining, did Rentería or any other member of CxO apologize or take any form of responsibility whatsoever for their actions that led to the upending of 35 of our coworkers’ lives with next to no advance notice. The responsibility for mismanaging our organizational growth lies with those who have the most power in this organization; the people most impacted by their failures are those who had no say in these decisions at all.

Failing our mission

So many of us have invested time and energy into Code for America because we believe in the mission. Today, Code for America management failed us, our mission, and our values. They did not listen first, as that would have required collaboration with our union and our broader staff before making this decision. They did not act with intention, as is clear by the haphazard and rushed nature of layoff notifications. They most certainly did not include those who have been excluded — if anything, they pushed those who have been excluded further into the margins.

Most importantly, nothing about Code for America management’s actions today was human-centered. The value we most pride ourselves on proved to be a hobby. Every single member of Code for America CxO and management bargaining team — Amanda Rentería, Mike Cowden, Tracey Patterson, Arlene Corbin-Lewis, Hashim Mteuzi, David Schlendorf, Yasmin Fodil, and Melenie Hernandez — bears collective responsibility for the cruel hypocrisy they employed while dealing with the coworkers they profess to care so much about.

Disrespecting our union

When layoffs happen in a unionized environment and there isn’t a contract in place (like us at CfA Workers United), the Employer is required to bargain with the union over the effects of layoffs, including terms of severance. While CxO informed us of these layoffs today, they have yet to provide the necessary information for the union to effectively advocate for our members.

With the information available to us now, we are particularly disturbed that the two members of our collective bargaining committee who have most often been the voice of our union — the two people who have most publicly spoken out against management’s abhorrent behavior in the bargaining process — are among those laid off today. We do not believe their selection for layoffs is a coincidence, and we are dismayed (though honestly, not surprised) that Code for America management is once again resorting to retaliation against those who dare to voice dissent.

We in Code for America Workers United will hold strong in the face of a management team that would rather our organization self-destruct than engage in the participatory democracy a union entails. We love our clients, we love our partners, and we love our work. Heartbreakingly, before they were locked out of all their accounts, many of our laid-off colleagues were frantically trying to finish and hand off work so that our clients would have the support they need.

We remain committed to taking care of each other as we regain our footing and focus on finishing our contract. Our members need time to heal and regroup from the poor treatment and gaslighting management engaged in today. We will say more publicly as information becomes available to us. In the meantime, we ask our supporters to consider donating to a mutual aid fund (Venmo @CfAWorkersSolidarity) we’ve established for our colleagues who have been laid off.

This is a blow from which we will all collectively recover by employing the values of our organization, even as our management abandons them. We are here to listen, act intentionally, and build a table big enough for everyone to pull up a chair and be included.

In solidarity, now and always,

~ CfAWU

In what’s become a consistent pattern of excuses and delay tactics, management showed up with no counters to our largest outstanding economic proposals: Leaves of Absence, Holidays, Paid Time Off (PTO), and Four-Day Work Week (4DWW). Despite having some of these proposals since October 2022, they claim they still need more time and resources to make a counterproposal. We have waited long enough!

At last week’s bargaining session, they once again showed up with no counters to the above outstanding proposals! Instead, they countered with a Strikes and Lockouts proposal that again is worse than what they offered before, stripping more of our rights away. While we were able to reach two Tentative Agreements, it was for Management Rights and Waiver proposals. They seem to be prioritizing only proposals that benefit them and keep delaying proposals that benefit workers.

Regressing

Regressive bargaining is a common bad faith bargaining tactic, in which either side reduces or withdraws an offer from an agreement on a particular item of bargaining. For example, if an employer offered 30 days of vacation, they couldn’t come back later and only offer 25. Conversely, the unit can’t offer a 4DWW, then come back with a 3DWW (unfortunately).

Management’s latest proposals regress in two specific areas from their previous proposals: compensation and 401k. When confronted about this unethical and illegal move on their part, they claimed that wasn’t their intent. Rather, that they were attempting to be more equitable but simply “hadn’t done the work” to make sure the numbers were right. They have since provided some data on this, and said that they didn’t intend for this proposal to be worse than the previous proposal.

Compensation

We proposed an across-the-board wage increase for each year of our contract that tries to keep up with inflation and the cost of living. Between the two, the average worker ends up actually earning less each year. Management, on the other hand, refuses to move from the current average annual wage increase. Our labor does not depreciate, and all workers deserve to be fairly compensated.

In their previous proposal, management offered an across-the-board annual wage increase of the average, or lower than average, merit increases from previous years. Their latest proposal, offered a tiered compensation increase with 0.2% more for employees making less than $100,000 per year, and 0.2% less for those making more than that in the name of equity. Management is proposing that union employees who make over $100,000 have a smaller annual wage increase than their managers currently do! Considering the average salary of our unit¹, the math ain’t mathin’.

We should note that some unit members have voiced their possible support for a tiered wage increase, where those who make less receive more². In fact, many of us are fighting for those that have less. However, equitable decisions can’t be made in the absence of data. We can’t just pick an arbitrary number because it makes life easier for those in power and call that “equitable.” Data is important here, but it’s something we’ve asked for and have been lacking from management.

401(k)

Management has offered to continue the current benefit of a 100% match, up to 3%, for all employees. In their previous proposal, they offered to add 50% for contributions over 3%, up to a maximum of 5%, for all employees after three years of employment³. Much like compensation, their latest proposal moves to a tiered system where those making less than $100,000 will receive the additional match up to 6%, while those making more would be matched up to 4%. We’d let you do the math, but you have about as much data as we do at this point.

Strikes & Lockouts

Management continues to push for their proposal that limits our rights to legally protected activity. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has made it clear that employers can not limit an employee’s ability to talk about or solicit for the union on non-work time, including before and after work, breaks, and time off. As the NLRB states (emphasis ours):

Working time is for work, so your employer may maintain and enforce non-discriminatory rules limiting solicitation and distribution, except that your employer cannot prohibit you from talking about or soliciting for a union during non-work time, such as before or after work or during break times; or from distributing union literature during non-work time, in non-work areas, such as parking lots or break rooms. Also, restrictions on your efforts to communicate with co-workers cannot be discriminatory. For example, your employer cannot prohibit you from talking about the union during working time if it permits you to talk about other non-work-related matters during working time.

The proposal from management, on the other hand, attempts to do both of these things. Not only does it prohibit us from discussing the union during work hours, but it extends that to the entire work day! Additionally, it bans using “work-only” communication channels, which are regularly used for non-work-related conversations, for union discussion. Working in a remote environment, these channels are some of the most vital forms of reaching workers; a sign that management wants to reduce our ability to engage workers. The following is a line from their counterproposal:

Participating in any picketing or leafleting during the workday or in communications channels designated for work-only topics

Code for America’s leadership knows that when we talk about our lived experiences at work, it makes people uncomfortable. They also know that discomfort should be aimed squarely at them. We’d hoped that by communicating the potential harms their proposals inflict, they’d understand why we fight for them. Instead, we’ve seen that they have little interest in reaching us across the table, with little explanation for their stances.

More attempts to silence our voices

Since recognition, management has consistently used their power in an attempt to silence us. It ranged from asking us not to talk publicly at all⁴, discouraging posting of union material in all-staff spaces (such as Slack and email), surveilling our collective social media as well as the social media of individual members, trying to limit our communication rights in their proposals, attempting to establish “norms” that are nothing more than tone policing the people that have been harmed by their actions, and even taking disciplinary action against vocal members of the unit.

Less than an hour before our bargaining session, management sent us their new, 8-page long “Slack policy”. When we brought this new policy up during bargaining, we were told that this was sent to us before bringing it to all staff as a courtesy and that this “is the policy they will be implementing”. We reminded them that they are legally required to provide us with any new policies⁵ for review and bargaining before they can be implemented. They claimed that this had been in the works since before recognition⁶, not that it would matter, then backpedaled and claimed they were giving it to us for review (as opposed to as ‘a courtesy’).

When management pulls back, we step up

It has been over two years since Code for America management recognized our union. Yet here we are with no contract to show for it. After countless delays and excuse after excuse, we have had enough!

We are tired of waiting for management to do the right thing. It is clear that their interests lie in maintaining their own positions of power rather than coming to a fair and equitable agreement with the unit. We will continue to ramp up our collective actions. ✊

Hearing from the collective

Taking action reminds us this isn’t about any one individual within our union. This is about all of us: our collective power and our shared priorities. Over the past weeks, action has looked like: replying to management’s emails, slack threads, a PTO petition, and, most importantly, checking in with our colleagues. We’ve heard from management that union activity is “making people uncomfortable.” As one of our members put it, “Anyone else notice how management says we’re making people uncomfortable when we talk about our lived experiences?”

When we take action, we acknowledge that “yes! this is uncomfortable.” It’s uncomfortable for all of us when management has all of the power and every forum to say what’s on their minds. This environment is untenable, especially for the most marginalized among us, and it’s time for a change (it’s been time!). Every week we’ll continue to show up at bargaining, with solutions-oriented proposals on how we can improve our working conditions and relieve the discomfort. Both at the bargaining table and with continued action, we’ll do everything in our power to illuminate the path forward.

Telling management we reject their proposal

On July 13th, management returned to us with a proposal. We were expecting to have movement, especially after 4 months of stalling. We saw that instead of making any substantial changes, they changed the document with some minor changes a day before bargaining. Instead of working on providing us a counter, time was spent building up a narrative that’s been notably different from what was happening at the bargaining table. That narrative was sent out via email to staff, during our bargaining session, with management’s “highlights” from the very proposal we were going over at the table.

While this email is being sent to staff, management and their counsel are insinuating that our bargaining committee didn’t speak for the rest of the unit. They went even further by attempting to force a vote on their proposal. Something they have no legal right to do.

The unit decided to respond. Collectively.

One member of our unit responded to management’s email with their thoughts on the proposal, and asked the rest of the unit what they thought.

We asked our unit to reply with a simple sentence, if they felt comfortable doing so: “I reject this proposal.” Four words, that’s it. 69 members (60%) of our unit responded. Many shared their own reasons for rejecting this proposal, including personal stories, advocating for others, and a desire to protect the benefits we have today.

Previous Next

Slack action

The next week, we followed suit by sounding off in slack. A member of the unit posted in our all staff Slack channel, sharing why our first contract is important to them along with their own reasons.

This time, we asked people to reply with two to three sentences summarizing why our contract is important to them. Once again, our unit went above and beyond. 29 members (25%) of our unit replied in-thread to the original message. Again, most of them sharing very personal and often emotional stories about certain benefits that are important to them. The vast majority of these revolved around flexible PTO and other leave policies.

Previous Next

Many people also shared their reply to the main channel¹. It takes a lot of courage to post about something so vulnerable in such a large space.

PTO petition

Last week, at our weekly all-hands meeting, we delivered our Keep Flexible PTO Petition to management. Signed by 75 members (65%) of the unit, this petition told management unequivocally that we will not agree to any contract that takes away our current benefits without increasing sustainability.

A member of the unit spoke at the end of our meeting, during the open mic segment. They introduced the petition to management and shared some additional thoughts, while others sent an internal link to the signed petition in the chat. In a show of solidarity, several members on the call turned their cameras on, complete with new virtual backgrounds!

Previous Next

Superheroes aren’t just in comics

Sometimes, they’re the creators! Following the delivery of the petition, another member of the unit stepped up to the mic with the incredibly well done comics below. In true Code for America fashion, these were shared in a slide deck and presented. Slide by slide.

Previous Next

Flexible PTO at Code for America

Flexible PTO² has been a key benefit at Code for America for over a decade. We’ve heard from dozens of our colleagues who were recruited on the promise of flexible PTO, and dozens more who have stayed at CfA because of this policy. Most of us have used it for something other than vacation, such as an unexpected emergency.

One of the final hurdles in reaching a contract is securing our existing flexible PTO policy in our contract. So far, the only reason management has refused to maintain our existing flexible PTO structure is because “we just can’t do it in a unionized environment.”

The only data management has provided to back up their claim was a screenshot of a graph that appeared to come from a spreadsheet, with no backing data. If a member of our unit had delivered something like that to management, they would not have accepted it. Why don’t they hold themselves to the same standards they’ve set for us?

Looking forward

With our collective voices out there, we look forward to reviewing management’s counters to our latest economics proposal at bargaining this week. We hope to see that management is listening and has heard our messages loud and clear.

America is in the midst of a labor renaissance. Participation and interest in organized labor is growing as workers come together to express their desires for respect, fairness, and dignity in the workplace—just this week, actors and writers in Hollywood came together to strike for better conditions for the first time since the 1960s.

In a setting like this—a notoriously exploitative, for-profit industry—everyone expects the boss to fight the union.

But workers are also unionizing and expressing their collective power in the world of socially conscious companies, “good” brands, and nonprofits—what does it look like when the bosses there also don’t want a strong union?

Many organizations that have fostered progressive images—ones where diversity, equity, and inclusion are at the forefront of their company values—have seen their workers unionize recently. It makes sense. These organizations tend to attract workers who share their values. Those same values often align with the goals of unionization: more democratic decision making, giving workers a say in their conditions, and centering the voices of the most marginalized people in an organization.

When workers at these companies form unions and flex their collective power, the values at these socially conscious organizations are tested—and more and more, they’re being exposed as surface-level. Take the unionization fights happening at REI or Planned Parenthood, for example. Management at these companies are leveraging brand goodwill to cover up power imbalances, comparing “how much better they are than other companies” with their “best in class” package to deflect from legitimate criticisms of the workplace, and using the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion to undermine unionization).

As labor scholar Kevin Van Meter wrote last year, “The problem with nonprofit corporations and businesses with a progressive image is that their ideals don’t apply to those who work there. Moreover, said ideals are often lacking a class and power analysis. Challenge a ‘progressive’ boss’s power and see how quickly they behave badly.”

Code for America: a case study

In May, a Code for America staff member expressed concerns with the antagonistic nature of the unionization process to CEO Amanda Rentería, who provided a clarifying response via email detailing her thought process during union negotiations. In it, she writes:

There are an increasing number of non-profits accused of ‘union-busting’ in public domains. The early research of these accusations in the non-profit sector are revealing that non-profits are held to a different (higher) standard than their for-profit counterparts in the unionization movement. It is still unclear whether the accusations in the non-profit sector are intended to be a negotiating tactic to create public pressure or intent to legally file a claim.

This response is illuminating. Rather than taking accusations of union busting at Code for America seriously and examining the organizational culture that led us here, management’s response is to deflect and say that the union has only levied the extremely serious (and well-documented) charges of union busting as a negotiation tactic.

Code for America management is using a tired, classic union busting playbook: delay, divide, deny.

• They have repeatedly unilaterally canceled bargaining since we formed our union in October 2021. They have left countless emails from our union’s lawyer unread, stalled for months on sending us proposals with minimal edits, and denied our requests for longer and in-person bargaining sessions.
• They have attempted to intimidate bargaining committee members, retaliated against organizers, broken Weingarten rights of workers past and present, and spread lies about the union internally to sow dissent.
• When confronted with these things, they have denied and deflected, painting the union as an external antagonistic force threatening the organization rather than a collection of the very workers who make this organization what it is and who want a say in our conditions.

Our union represents a broad diversity of people across Code for America, including workers who are BIPOC, queer and trans, disabled and neurodivergent, from difficult socioeconomic backgrounds, parents and caregivers, and immigrants. Importantly, our union represents almost everyone at the bottom of the organizational hierarchy, typically those who have the least amount of money and power, and who will therefore feel changes to the workplace the most. Code for America externally commits itself to the practice of “incorporating insights from the people closest to the problems we are trying to solve,” and yet internally, management has not shown interest in truly listening to the members of our union about our concerns in the workplace.

We can make so much change!—but not like that

Code for America prides itself on setting and maintaining a high standard for its values, products, and services. Leadership for the nonprofit claims to be at the forefront of innovation, and the organization often self-refers as the “leader in the field of civic technology”—but ultimately, the innovation narrative seems to be deployed only when it is convenient. When we expect Code for America to meet that same high standard that they publicly profess, management claims that the union is holding the nonprofit to an unfair standard relative to partner organizations in the industry or for-profit peers.

Management has frequently claimed that we are breaking new ground by being among the first in our field to unionize—and that because no one has done this before, the process may take awhile. And yes, in our niche, we are breaking new ground. But in a broader, truer sense, we absolutely are not. Though new to our sector (which is relatively young itself), unionization is not a new process. Millions of workers in this country have unionized thousands of organizations, and the process, while it can be difficult, is not something that takes this long to see through—unless one side is purposefully attempting to make it impossible to move forward.

Code for America can’t have it both ways. Either we’re an agile, innovative organization that values the people who work here and the people we serve, or we’re not. Either we uphold our professed values of “listening first, acting with intention, and including those who have been excluded,” or we don’t. It’s that simple.

Sticking to our values—not just in public forums and spaces where it is convenient—is all we are asking of management. That they treat the union in private the same way they are proclaiming to treat us in public: with dignity, respect, and an eagerness to collaborate.

Jon Stewart once said, “if you don’t stick to your values when they’re being tested, they’re not values, they’re hobbies.” Code for America’s values are being tested. We hope they can ring truer in the coming weeks as we work towards our first union contract. Our workers, our clients, and our partners all deserve to be proud of this place—and we know we can achieve this goal if management makes a genuine effort to meet us at the bargaining table and live out our values, even when it’s hard.

Code for America Workers United was founded with one clear goal in mind: to better live out our external values internally. With our clients and partners, we listen first, act with intention, and include those who have been excluded. It’s the animating mantra of our work, threaded through our design choices, engineering projects, and communications work.

Perhaps none of these is more important in the context of unionization than including those who have been excluded. Unionization is inherently a redistribution of power, as a union gives workers a clear, legally codified right to have a seat at the decision making table where conversations about workplace conditions occur.

We have been hopeful since the beginning that Code for America management would greet us at that table eagerly, pulling up extra chairs, wiggling to make space, and throwing all our ideas up on sticky notes (a hallmark of our work!) to get down into the nitty gritty of creating our first union contract.

Gradually, the luster of that original hopeful vision has faded. We have appeared at the bargaining table time and time again, ready and willing to collaboratively bargain, only to be stonewalled, tone-policed, disrespected, and shut down. We are losing faith in management’s commitment not only to the collective bargaining process, but to Code for America’s values as a whole.

We implore the management bargaining committee to do what’s right: sit down with us in good faith, negotiate collaboratively, and help us create a sustainable environment that can make everyone proud to work here while accomplishing our mission to help millions of people access the services they deserve.

The latest bargaining update

Our union showed up to our scheduled bargaining session yesterday (management unilaterally canceled bargaining last week) ready to see management’s counter proposals that we have been owed for the past almost four months. Though we had asked for management’s proposals in advance multiple times, our emails went unanswered. During our bargaining session, they attempted to obfuscate something that became immediately obvious when we saw the track changes—they had made no substantive changes to what we had seen, and rejected, when it was last presented to us on March 23, 2023. On March 30, 2023, the union sent a counter package proposal on which management has so far refused to negotiate, compromise, or explore collaborative terms.

In the past four months, management has made various excuses for why they could not offer a counter proposal, principal among them being their preparation for the National Labor Relations Board unit clarification hearing. Yet even with the hearing over, management offered:

• No new counter proposals
• An adherence to their previous proposals that roll back current benefits, including the elimination of flexible PTO
• A refusal to codify holidays that we have had for three years that are used in hiring material, interviews, and on the company website—making these dates subject to arbitrary change and disruptive to the lives of workers who have to plan around them
• Only one change to our economic proposals—a $100 increase ($200 total) to a one-time per year stipend for employees who provide multilingual translation services outside of their day to day, benefitting only a handful of employees and excluding those who do daily multilingual work
• A flat rejection to the request to have a union member representing workers on the board, with no answer or reasoning why
• A flat rejection of our proposal to have a standing labor management committee (to handle things like career ladders and hiring inequities) that meets four times a year, a standard in most other unionized workplaces

Management’s counsel (from a firm currently under fire for decades-long behavior of racist, sexist, homophobic, and antisemitic practices) then tried to pressure the union to accept the deal, saying we’ve been “arguing about this for months”—when in fact, we have not. A four-month delay, followed by the same proposal we’ve already seen, is stalling for months.

It’s hard to categorize this as good faith negotiating, as we have no insight into “the why” behind their proposals to come to any sort of consensus or true discussion on a deal that makes sense for both parties. Throughout the NLRB proceedings, Code for America’s senior management team repeatedly testified to our “highly collaborative” culture. In all other aspects of our work throughout the organization, we frequently utilize tools like online whiteboards, brainstorming spaces, facilitated feedback sessions, etc. None of this shows up in bargaining. In this case and several times before, management presented proposals and provided no space for discussion, ideation, or brainstorming to reach a common ground.

We have tried for almost two years now to assume good intent. At this point, the only interpretation of management’s actions is, sadly, that they do not want a unionized workplace nor are they interested in hearing from workers about their needs and asks for a more equitable workplace. That directly runs counter to values Code for America uses a lot—listening first and including those who are excluded.

In yesterday’s meeting, management demanded that the bargaining committee bring this package proposal to the full unit for a vote—despite the fact that this proposal had already been seen and rejected by the unit four months prior. Their demand is intended to circumvent bargaining on the rest of the proposals and end the whole process with less than what workers started with prior to the union’s existence. Once again, management is attempting to undermine the members of the collective bargaining committee, claiming they don’t represent the unit despite frequent unit meetings, 1:1s, surveys, and breakout committees. Attempting to divide a unit like this is a hallmark union busting tactic.

Our union will continue to show up ready to collaboratively bargain, and we call on management to do the same. We owe it to our clients and partners—with whom we work so hard and care about so deeply—to make this organization a sustainable workplace for the broad diversity of people showing up to make positive change each day.

Code for America, there is still time to course-correct to get to a contract that represents the needs of our diverse workforce. We’re ready to negotiate. Are you?