Should we? that's debatable and could be opinion based. but more importantly, considering SE is multi-billion dollar corporation, could we?

...SE is multi-billion dollar corporation... @Vishwa Is it? They've said how much they got in VC but I couldn't find anything saying how much revenue the network generates.

My two cents: remuneration, no, except as negotiating leverage, perhaps. I would like to see moderators have more protection and more say in how things are done.

@Nobody - If your idea of fixing it includes paying the volunteers for the last two years' worth of work, in full, then I disagree. I don't want the company to go bankrupt. I just want to see some changes.

When I try to mediate a solution, with an organization I'm in entrenched conflict with, I try to keep clearly in mind what I'm trying to get out of it.

@Nobody - How have you been trying to mediate? I ask because I'm not sure if we're both using the term to mean the same thing. // What's your primary goal? Secondary? Do you want to push the company out of business? If the company were to go under as a side effect of your actions, would you care?

If this labour law angle ends up helping Monica in her efforts to get justice that's great, but other than that it should remain unexplored. Even if there were a legal claim (and that's still a giant if!), it would be morally wrong for moderators to start claiming remuneration retroactively. No one can honestly say they entered moderatorship without being competely aware there would be no money involved, and a private entity was going to profit off their efforts.

I've removed the comment about this being in the same spirit as the open letter. It's very much not, and it comes across as an attempt to say the 700 supporters of that letter also support this, which feels disingenuous. The letter is in a spirit of "we're hurt, but let's fix things". This is "we're hurt, so let's burn everything down". Very different things.

This question was closed for this reason: This question has been asked before and already has an answer. There is no accepted answer on the linked question.

"What are people's thoughts and what should our next steps be?" So, why does this need a new question? That's basically what the other question was about.

Nobody: You wrote, "I have been in contact with the legal department over other issues. It's personal. Any attempt I've made at gaining public support for anything has failed." I can relate, and I'm very sorry to hear it. One thing I learned through my advocacy efforts for my son, who has Tourette Syndrome, is that it's always a good idea to keep my goals clearly in mind at each step of the way. I understand your instinct to focus in an unwavering way on whether something is legal or illegal, and if it's illegal, then proceed with what might seem to be the obvious next step. However,...

... based on my experiences, I personally favor a more practical approach, where strategy and tactics are chosen based on the desired outcome. Partly this is because even if I win, my relationship with the school district is ongoing, and there's a child at stake. Here at SE, my (our) relationship with the company is also ongoing, and there are many users at stake. SE provides an extremely helpful service for countless people all around the world. // If you want to link to the situation you alluded to, I'd be happy to look at it. If you'd rather not, that's okay too. // Some of the...

... comments you've written here have given the impression that you don't mind if the company goes bankrupt and the network dies. Some other comments you've written give a gentler impression. So here's a proposal: what would you say to reviewing your recent comment history, and deleting the ones that might give a reader an impression that you might not really have intended? It's up to you. I'm not planning to flag anything.

@Shadow This is not a duplicate. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/337117/… is a factual question asking whether or not a certain law is violated. This question is a question of opinion asking whether it would be a good idea to seek redress under this law. One might well answer “yes, it's illegal” to the first question and “no, we shouldn't sue” to this question, or “no, it's legal” to the first question and “we can't (usefully) sue but there should be a law” here.

I recommend that you rephrase the question as "Assuming that SE is violating NY labor laws, what should we do?" in order to remove the overlap between questions. That doesn't change the fact that a significant number of the answers to the other question are off topic there and would be on topic here, but what can you do?

@Gilles since I wasn't the only close voter I didn't get notification for the comment reply. Saw it now by chance, and after second look, reopened. Thanks. (see this about missing ping)