Frederick Reiber, Nathan Kim, Allison McDonald, Dana Calacci
10 min
Abstract
Despite high approval ratings for unions and growing worker interest in organizing, employees in the United States still face significant barriers to securing collective bargaining agreements. A key factor is employer counter-organizing: efforts to suppress unionization through rule changes, retaliation, and disruption. Designing sociotechnical tools and strategies to resist these tactics requires a deeper understanding of the role computing technologies play in counter-organizing against unionization. In this paper, we examine three high-profile organizing efforts -- at Amazon, Starbucks, and \university -- using publicly available sources to identify four recurring technological tactics: surveillance, spacing, screaming and scabbing. We analyze how these tactics operate across contexts, highlighting their digital dimensions and strategic deployment. We conclude with implications for organizing in digitally-mediated workplaces, directions for future research, and emergent forms of worker resistance.
Alex: Okay, so three cases like real-world puzzles. Why those ones specifically?
Sam: They chose cases where digital tech clearly played a big role in blocking unions, based on recent reports. They focused on formal workplaces with service jobs, skipping gig platforms where workers often lack basic bargaining rights. The cases also varied in size and type but shared key traits like worker uncertainty and public data availability, and they checked with labor activists for feedback.
Alex: Right, so accessible info on service work fights. With authors who organize themselves, any blind spots?
Sam: They address that openly. As labor activists and academics, their views lean toward workers, so they skipped employer defenses and relied on written sources to counter personal bias. Limits include missing undocumented events and U.S.-only focus, but it highlights recurring patterns for broader use, like guiding new tools. The evidence points to these tactics as a solid starting model.
Alex: If they're recurring patterns, how exactly do they build on each other to make organizing tougher?
Sam: That's the crucial part. The paper shows they don't operate alone—they link up, each one making the others stronger, like pieces in a chain where pulling one tightens the rest. For instance, watching workers closely lets bosses enforce keeping them apart physically, as seen at Amazon where cameras and software moved suspected organizers away from others.
Alex: Okay, so surveillance feeds directly into spacing. Does that loop back the other way too?
Sam: Yes. When workers are spread out and can't talk easily, they might turn to apps or social media to connect, but that opens doors for more watching. Starbucks workers used online posts to organize across distant stores, only for the company to monitor those channels closely.
Alex: Huh. And how does that tie into the constant messaging?
Sam: Screaming gets amplified too. With people isolated, bosses become the main voice on unions—Amazon's work app sent round-the-clock warnings right to phones, while spaced workers had fewer chances to hear counter views. Surveillance also pairs with it; at Boston University, anti-union emails pushed workers to self-report via digital forms, feeding more data back to bosses.
Alex: So isolation boosts the propaganda's reach, and reporting builds the watchlist. But walk me through one case—like Starbucks—how did the digital side play out there specifically?
Sam: At Starbucks, workers started organizing store-by-store using social media like TikTok and Instagram to share videos of strikes or bad managers, building a nationwide push from just a few New York shops to over 550. This worker-led approach skipped traditional top-down unions at first, relying on online posts to spread the word and challenge the company's image. But bosses monitored those same platforms—tracking likes, shares, and comments—to spot and target active organizers, turning the tools workers used against them.
Alex: So the apps that helped connect them also let the company watch closely. What else did Starbucks do with their own digital setup?
Sam: They sent mass texts and memos straight to phones with anti-union arguments, like warnings about dues or losing direct manager help, creating what workers called a fear culture. On tips, they rolled out credit card options only at non-union stores, using their app and payment systems to offer perks selectively and discourage votes. They also closed unionizing stores or shuffled workers via digital hiring and scheduling platforms, quickly replacing or spacing people to dilute support.
Alex: Huh, closing stores and shuffling—that sounds like fast turnover made easy by software. How about Boston University—did similar patterns show up there?
Sam: Yes, graduate workers faced spread-out offices, so they built their own chat systems outside university email and Slack to organize, but uneven access limited reach. The school sent anti-union emails to everyone, arguing grad work isn't real labor, and refused contact lists, blocking organizers from reaching all workers. During a strike, they required digital surveys where strikers had to self-report work done for paychecks, creating direct data on who joined and enabling precise targeting. Instructors got locked out of online course platforms, where materials and grades live on servers bosses control, letting admins hand access to temps easily. Unlike paper-based classes workers could withhold, digital ones make swaps seamless.
Alex: Self-reporting via web forms—that flips the pressure onto workers themselves. Pulling it all together, what does this mean for how workplaces actually run now?
Sam: The paper points to a shift where bosses control work more through hidden tech systems—like apps and servers—rather than obvious rules or threats. This mirrors challenges in gig jobs, where workers produce data they can't control, making it hard to push back collectively. For unions focused on basics like pay, they now need to tackle these digital layers too, treating tech as a battleground, not just background.
Alex: Okay, so tech embeds power deep in the daily grind. Does that suggest specific ways workers could protect themselves?
Sam: Yes, privacy stands out as key. Workers should treat all company chats or apps as open to bosses, skipping them for organizing and keeping personal devices clear of work software. The paper stresses *collective privacy* too—group protection from predictions based on shared data, like at Amazon—calling for rules to limit employer monitoring overall. Strong privacy laws could ease this, though big tech's influence makes that tough.
Alex: Huh, collective privacy—meaning one person's data affects the group. And beyond privacy, any organizing advice?
Sam: Deep mapping helps: workers chart not just who knows who, but how tech systems link up, spotting weak points. A tool for this is the *workers’ inquiry*—a list of questions from the 1800s, updated for digital jobs, to uncover leverage from the inside. It builds bottom-up knowledge, useful even in traditional spots as tech spreads.
Alex: So map the tech too, like scouting a video game level. From a design angle, what's their push?
Sam: They're skeptical of tech meant to help workers, since bosses easily turn it against them—like hiring apps or chats becoming weapons. Instead, they advocate *designing for sabotage*: tools for quiet resistance, such as anonymous apps to coordinate strict rule-following that slows bosses down without looking like a strike. Examples include fake job apps to block replacements or checklists for "work-to-rule," where workers do exactly the handbook says, gumming up efficiency while paid.
Alex: Work-to-rule—following rules so tightly it hurts production. That flips the script cleverly.
Sam: Exactly, drawing from old union ideas. The paper notes researchers can aid this, like with secure coordination tech, while documenting hidden barriers to build worker knowledge. Limits remain: public records might miss quiet incidents, it's U.S.-focused needing checks elsewhere, and lacks boss views for balance.
Alex: Fair points on the limits. Overall, this maps a real power tilt via tech, urging smarter fights back.
Sam: It does—one of the first looks at tech's role in blocking unions, informing strategies from privacy to sabotage designs. The takeaway is clear: to build lasting worker strength, address both job conditions and the digital systems shaping them.
Alex: That's a solid synthesis, Sam. Thanks for breaking it down—this gives real insight into the tech side of work fights. Thanks for listening to ResearchPod.