Nila Kartika Wati
For decades, the American nonprofit sector has been the primary vehicle for collective action, advocating for the marginalized, defending civil rights, and pushing for democratic reforms across public and private institutions. However, a significant internal shift is occurring as the workforce responsible for this advocacy increasingly questions whether their own employers live up to the values they champion in the public square. This internal scrutiny has catalyzed a wave of unionization across the United States, transforming the nonprofit workplace from a space of "mission-driven sacrifice" to one of negotiated labor rights and structural equity.
The surge in organizing is no longer confined to isolated disputes over cost-of-living adjustments. Instead, it has evolved into a comprehensive movement focusing on transparency, job security, racial equity, and the democratization of organizational decision-making. As nonprofit workers seek a greater voice in the missions they serve, the sector faces a fundamental test: can organizations built to foster an equitable society build workplaces where employees hold meaningful, enforceable power?
The Microcosm of the Southern Poverty Law Center
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization synonymous with civil rights litigation and monitoring hate groups, serves as a prominent case study in this labor evolution. The journey toward unionization at SPLC began in earnest in December 2019, when employees voted 145 to 42 to affiliate with the Washington-Baltimore News Guild. The drive was fueled by internal turmoil regarding workplace culture, allegations of discrimination, and a perceived disconnect between management and staff regarding compensation and leadership.
The path to a first contract was arduous, involving approximately 60 bargaining sessions over three years. In 2022, a landmark agreement was reached, establishing provisions for paid parental and sick leave, retirement contributions, and remote work. Crucially, it also created a Labor Management Committee specifically focused on racial justice and equity—an effort to institutionalize the organization’s external mission within its internal operations. At the time, then-CEO Margaret Huang characterized the agreement as a "proud day," signaling a shift toward a collaborative union-management relationship.
However, the stability of this relationship was tested shortly thereafter. A major restructuring effort led by SPLC management resulted in dozens of layoffs, which the union claimed disproportionately affected its members and weakened key programmatic areas. This friction culminated in a vote of no confidence in Huang by the unionized staff. Management defended the cuts as a necessary strategic pivot to ensure long-term sustainability, highlighting a recurring tension in the sector: the conflict over who defines what an organization’s mission requires during times of financial or strategic transition.
By March 2026, after nine additional months of intensive negotiations, a new agreement was ratified covering 220 unionized employees. This contract not only preserved remote-work flexibility and expanded parental leave but also introduced groundbreaking provisions regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace and guaranteed union involvement in future layoff planning. Lee Warnecke, a member of the bargaining committee, described the deal as "leadership in action," suggesting that the union had successfully moved from a defensive posture to a proactive role in organizational governance.
Addressing the "Passion Tax" and Economic Realities
The movement toward unionization is driven by a rejection of the "passion tax"—the long-standing expectation that nonprofit workers should accept lower wages and higher stress because they find meaning in their work. While mission-driven commitment is a powerful motivator, it has historically allowed organizations to overlook systemic issues such as burnout, stagnant wages, and management dysfunction.
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and reports by organizations like the Associated Press highlight that nonprofit employees often face a widening gap between their professional responsibilities and their economic security. As inflation and housing costs have risen, the contradiction of working for an economic justice organization while struggling to pay rent has become untenable for many.
Furthermore, the adversarial nature of early bargaining at organizations like SPLC—where lead negotiators reportedly felt "treated like the devil"—underscores the cultural shift required for nonprofit leaders. Many executives, accustomed to unilateral decision-making in the name of the mission, view collective bargaining as an impediment to agility. Conversely, workers argue that a unionized structure provides the stability and morale necessary for a mission to succeed over the long term.
A Widening Pattern: Pew Research and Carnegie Endowment
The trend is accelerating among high-profile policy and research institutions. In October 2025, staff at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace won their union election with an 87 percent majority, forming the Carnegie Endowment Workers Alliance. The organizers emphasized that their push for a union was rooted in a desire for transparency and accountability, rather than a rejection of the institution’s goals.
Similarly, in January 2026, employees at the Pew Research Center—an institution dedicated to data-driven public insight—voted 74 to 45 to unionize with the Nonprofit Professional Employees Union (NPEU). This followed a period where management declined a request for voluntary recognition, a common point of friction in these campaigns. Amy Chin-Lai, President of the NPEU, noted that the Pew vote reflected a "clear desire for a constructive partnership," framing the union as a tool to enhance the quality of the center’s research by protecting the workers who produce it.
These developments suggest that unionization is becoming a standard expectation for professional staff in the nonprofit sector. The NPEU now represents employees at dozens of organizations, providing a centralized framework for workers to share strategies and standards across the industry.
The Collaborative Model: Healthcare Anchor Network
While some union drives are born of conflict, others demonstrate the potential for a more cooperative "partnership" model. The Healthcare Anchor Network (HAN) provides a blueprint for how collective bargaining can be integrated into an organization’s growth strategy.
Staff at HAN first unionized in 2022. By May 2026, they ratified a four-year successor agreement that was notable for its focus on the lowest-paid employees. The contract included targeted raises for those earning $70,000 or less, alongside expanded professional development benefits. David Zuckerman, HAN’s president and founder, praised the deal for striking a balance between staff improvements and "shared organizational sustainability."
The HAN experience illustrates that when management views the union as a legitimate stakeholder, collective bargaining can transition from a source of friction to a mechanism for organizational health. By negotiating as a group, employees move workplace policy from the realm of management discretion to the realm of binding contract, which can reduce turnover and foster a more committed workforce.
Challenges of Implementation: The Philadelphia Museum of Art
Winning a contract is often only the first stage of the struggle. The Philadelphia Museum of Art (PMA) highlights the complexities of contract enforcement. Following a 19-day strike in 2022, museum workers secured a first contract that included wage increases and longevity raises. However, disputes soon arose over how management implemented these provisions, with workers alleging that the museum was shortchanging long-time employees through narrow interpretations of the contract language.
Despite these hurdles, the union persisted, ratifying a second three-year contract in July 2025. This agreement secured a higher minimum wage and stronger protections against unjust discipline. The PMA case is a reminder that a union provides a permanent infrastructure for advocacy; without it, employees would have little recourse when management interpretations of policy shift.
The subsequent firing of PMA’s CEO Sasha Suda in November 2025—amid allegations of financial misappropriation—further underscored the importance of worker-led oversight. In an environment where executive leadership can be volatile, a union contract serves as a stabilizing force for the rank-and-file staff.
Sector-Wide Implications and the Future of Nonprofit Governance
The growth of the nonprofit labor movement is forcing a re-evaluation of how "accountability" is measured in the sector. Traditionally, a nonprofit’s health was judged by its program outcomes and the percentage of donations spent on administrative costs. Today, a new metric is emerging: the quality of the internal workplace and the degree of influence granted to employees.
Analysis of the recent wave of contracts reveals several emerging trends in nonprofit labor relations:
- Democratization of Strategy: Workers are increasingly negotiating for seats on boards or the creation of joint committees that influence high-level strategic decisions.
- Equity as a Contractual Right: Language regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is moving out of non-binding handbooks and into enforceable contracts.
- Technological Safeguards: As seen in the SPLC negotiations, protections against AI-driven displacement are becoming a priority for knowledge workers in the sector.
- Economic Floor-Setting: Unions are successfully pushing for higher minimum salaries, effectively raising the floor for entry-level roles in the nonprofit industry.
The nonprofit labor movement is ultimately a challenge to the traditional hierarchy of "charity" work. It posits that it is difficult, if not impossible, to effectively advocate for a more democratic and just society while operating a workplace that lacks those same democratic protections.
As the NPEU and other guilds continue to rack up wins through 2026, the question for nonprofit boards and executives is no longer whether their staff will organize, but how they will respond when they do. Those who embrace collective bargaining as an extension of their mission may find themselves with more resilient, loyal, and effective organizations. Those who resist may find that the very values they promote to the world are the same ones their employees will use to demand change from within. The shift from "mission-driven" to "worker-empowered" is not just a change in HR policy; it is a fundamental realignment of the nonprofit sector’s identity.
