Your example is misguided. Volunteers for DWB are embedded in DWB's legal and organisational structure; receive a salary and get reimbursed for some costs. Nothing like that applies to Wikipedia editors. They are not part of the legal and organizational structure of WMF, don't get a salary, and only occasionally may get reimbursed for some of their costs. Given the differences, I presume your comparison is more or less common WMF propaganda strategy.

WMF is fine, its technical infrastructure is set up, enough money is in the bank. The yearly hosting costs of all language versions e.g. are below the combined salary of all staff concentrating on fundraising.

WMF staff is well paid with a large overhead. And, for the exception of server maintenance, more or less not needed. WMF is a means to provide people you know with nice jobs, regardless of their expertise or the relevance of the job posting (Evan Prodromou has been a notorious example).

So, let privileged WMF staff unionize. But don't advertise that goal by pointing to the (so-called) virtues of Wikipedia and unpaid volunteer editors with their countless man-hours. WMF exploits their work like large tech companies do when they use the editors' work (without a fee, due to the license) for their in-house training of their AI, their search engines, or their automated content monitoring syste4ms. If you want to end exploitation, unionizing the privileged WMF employees is the last place where to start. Begin with reimbursing or paying the editors of Wikipedia.

Exploitation it is. Unionizing the WMF staff only sugarcoats that pervasive and foundational trait. But it ads to the many reasons why to stay firmly away from Wikipedia or Wikimedia.