To my research community,
In my first newsletter, I shared the journey map that I created (with your insights) of the steps it takes to form a union and the many reasons a worker may drop-off along the way.
For digital design, I’m focusing on two elements within that process:
THE BEGINNING: An early mindset shift/awareness of unions
MATURING: Consensus building when your collective has grown
Let’s have a look:
1. Good Grievance!
Context: Union membership has been steadily declining since the 1980s due to policy barriers. As a result, many people today lack direct exposure to unions within their immediate circles. Whereas many of the labor movement leaders that I’ve interviewed point to a neighbor, parent, or relative as their introduction to unions, most people don’t have this exposure.
In recent years, however, some high profile organizing efforts at household name companies like Amazon, Trader Joe’s, and Starbucks are bringing unions back into popular interest. Still, there is a gap between seeing those workplaces unionize in the news and seeing the potential in one’s own workplace.
“[One of the] biggest challenges is: getting more people to have the thought in their mind of like ‘hey, we should have a union here.’ Something shitty happens at work and instead of just being like ‘my job sucks,’ [thinking of a] union. You know, that by itself is really key.”
– Hamilton Nolan, Labor Journalist and Author
I wondered: how might we help individuals realize that their workplace conditions aren’t fixed and that organizing is and has been doable in comparable situations?
The site: Good Grievance! is a mobile site where everyday people facing negative workplace conditions can productively vent – gaining transparency into shared struggles with coworkers and seeing how organizing at comparable workplaces has improved conditions.By seeing themselves on a spectrum and in a historical timeline, users can realize that their conditions aren’t fixed. Change is possible.
For instance:
Camille is a barista in Brooklyn. Her boss has been withholding tips. She starts searching about her rights and lands on Good Grievance!
She begins to “vent” about compensation. She scans the rest of the site’s grievance list and marks environmental hazards too, remembering the unaddressed mold in the break room.
She inputs some details about her type of workplace and the conditions she’s experiencing.
Good Grievance! shows her, per condition:
where her workplace falls on a spectrum compared to comparable workplaces
how many of her coworkers are also unhappy about each issue
comparable workplaces with a better version of that condition and the organizing efforts that were made to achieve it
and the history of that condition
Good Grievance! directs her to resources to learn more about her legal rights and ways to connect with organizers in her industry to learn more about collective action.
Testing: For this concept, the biggest question that I wanted to test early on was: are users willing to verify where they work and is this necessary? I referenced two sites with adjacent purposes: Reddit and Glassdoor.
On Reddit, users write open-ended thoughts and are anonymous. Because Good Grievance! aggregates pinpointed responses to questions like compensation, harassment, safety etc. I wondered if anonymity felt as necessary.
On Glassdoor, users verify where they work in order to submit and then view data. This mechanism both keeps that data strong and ensures its upkeep. However, with Glassdoor, users primarily feel comfortable leaving honest information when they have already left a company. Good Grievance! users are not necessarily in the same job-searching mindset.
My user interviews surfaced that – even if there isn’t much risk with verifying one’s workplace – this friction would still deter many people from completing the user flow. So I went back to the drawing board and to the basics. To meet the site’s goals, users only need to see one comparable company, at minimum, that has organized for a better condition (see the starred wireframe above). Therefore, using the site for data collection is not necessary and overcomplicates things. Instead, this information can be sourced from unions, research institutes, and journalism. Users can still verify where they work if they want to see how many coworkers are feeling the same way, but the site’s success no longer hinges on user input.
What’s Next: With continued time, I would explore other UI for data visualization, test entry points to the site, and explore which resources are most actionable to point users to at the end of the flow.
2. Consensus Builder
Context: As a union grows from two people, to three, four, and so on, group decisions come into play – about what issue to campaign around, when to go public, what actions to structure test with, and so on.
But are we equipped with the skills to make group decisions? As David Graeber reflected from his activism with Occupy Wall Street, “How often does the average American actually sit down, even with a group of four or five people, and try to make a collective decision in which all have equal say? True, children often do it while playing. But, for adults, the experience of democracy is largely limited to decisions involving food, or maybe movies.”
Still, these conversations are often reduced to a majority vote. It's pretty lofty to then imagine that this same skillset is what can enable us to make more important group decisions like whether or not to unionize – let alone the ongoing details of that work.
“Our second biggest challenge was decision making processes… I thought maybe with decision making we were moving too slow. The build up of energy was becoming poisoning in some ways. We were becoming resentful of each other… We needed support to learn together what our decision making mechanism would be.”
– A labor organizer at a nonprofit
I wondered: how might we begin building the skills of consensus with lower hanging fruit in the groups that compose our daily lives like our teams, friends, and family?
The app: Consensus Builder is a group decision-making app that helps people practice the skills of consensus in everyday settings – from choosing a lunch spot with your work team to planning a trip with family. Unlike basic polls or majority voting, it invites participants to reflect on their principles, rank options, and work toward decisions where everyone feels heard, without endless unstructured back-and-forths that can stoke tension.
In workplace settings, it might also provide a simple opportunity to connect on personal channels, outside of employer-owned communication tools like slack and work email, which can make the eventual start to organizing much easier.
What’s Next: I am still in the process of testing wireframes with potential users. I’m also curious to explore a plug-in alternative that allows the Consensus Builder flow to exist directly in group chats. More to learn!
How’d I Get There?
Thank you to Krissi Xenakis for her course “Thesis: Advanced Interaction Design Practices” at the School of Visual Arts. Through this class and these projects, I have been able to practice quick wireframing, user testing, and UI using design systems. Krissi is brilliant and generous in her time, resources, and feedback.
I'll close each newsletter with a recommendation per category:
A documentary: Where Do You Stand? Stories from an American Mill by Alexandra Lescaze
An article: Some Remarks On Consensus by David Graeber
A training/offering: Why Not Lab’s workshops
Current organizing to support as a consumer: Join a May Day march or action
If you'd like to chat, share, or give feedback – reply and I’d love to hear from you!
With gratitude,
Erica Fink