Just to add to this comment; It's one thing for software developers in the government or a large "essential" corporation like a bank or telecom company to unionize. Those places get toxic because the work has to be done and gets very political because of the sheer number of people's lives they affect. I understand the labour issues around working for those organizations.
But kickstarter? You mean the funding apparatus for indie games and gimmicky consumer products? That's where you want to unionize?
Workers' unions represent workers, not consumers or society as a whole, so why should they care about whether the workers they represent work at "essential" corporations?
Because some stress is more justified than others. If somebody was stressed out as a travel blogger, would you favour their unionization over a stressed out retail worker?
That's essentially what I'm getting at, the stress at kickstarter isn't worth their mission. But at other companies, the stress is worth it, so therefore the unionization is worth it.
Unionization takes public support, it's not something done in isolation (hence why there's all sorts of articles about Kickstarter's attempt and unionizing - they need support). Public support is a zero-sum game, therefore unionization is a zero-sum game.
If I give my limited attention to this unionization effort, then I may not give it to someone else. And maybe there is a workforce who doesn't have the eye of the internet who are trying to unionize, but now kickstarter has taken all the space for that news category.
If they feel that unionization can improve the conditions of their employment, regardless of stress, I don't see the difference. Their employer is optimizing towards less expenses per unit of work, and it's only fair that an equally resourceful organization can counter balance that goal with the workers in mind.
But kickstarter? You mean the funding apparatus for indie games and gimmicky consumer products? That's where you want to unionize?