16 ms·

Corporate Spies Are Watching Organized Labor

93 points by jrepinc 7y ago

jacknews 7y ago
And network analysis enables them to spot the early stages of organizations forming, and their "trajectory", and potentially to intervene to ensure they don't gain traction and get to a critical stage where they are highly likely to go "mainstream". I did have links to a couple of papers describing this, but misplaced them, and google isn't forthcoming...
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  It's true, but I wonder if the way employees organize themselves will transform in such a way to make graph analysis less useful - similarly to how recent protests seem to work. From what I've read about Occupy protests, the Yellow Vests, and now Hong Kong protesters, they're all spontaneous and decentralized. Instead of an individual or a small group of leaders energizing the movement, there's something of a shared idea (a meme, if you like) flowing through the network, and once it crosses a threshold, you suddenly have thousands of people protesting. (This immediately suggests a strategy to combat such organization: instead of trying to find out who the leaders are - which will fail, because there are none - one should focus on misinformation to create enough doubt and noise that the threshold for spontaneous organization isn't crossed.)
  - jacknews 7y ago
    Indeed, and it seem to me these countermeasures are exactly the method that's being employed by the likes of Putin and Trump. In google's case, I think they're just analyzing employee emails etc.
    - sodosopa 7y ago
      > In google's case, I think they're just analyzing employee emails etc. That’s why it’s ill advised to use company email for personal communication. Do it over telegram on your personal devices.
  - CM30 7y ago
    Yeah, I think this is definitely the way future labour movements will go. That said, the decentralised setup has its own issues too. In addition to the misinformatioon aspect you point out, it makes it very difficult to control the 'reputation' of a protest or movement, since any Tom, Dick and Harry can claim to be associated with it and do whatever they want. This makes such an organisation easy to co-opt, or to misrepresent to the media.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Have the yellow vests achieved anything? Not that that protests have to achieve major results. Sometimes the main thing is to get exposure so that powers that be realize there is foment that needs addressing (in a positive way, not in a crackdown way).
    - sojmq 7y ago
      Democracy is a sham, something to keep the masses in check. In this day and age you won't get shit just by protesting.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >Have the yellow vests achieved anything? Yes. Quite a lot. The leadership went from not acknowledging their protests, talking down on them and promising to go on with all the reforms, to want to talk, and taking down certain parts of the laws.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    This is quite noticeable among the modern far right; there have been a number of mass shooters who cite the same arguments and articles in their manifestoes, but there isn't any kind of conventional authority linking them. No command-and-control relationship or terrorist cell. Sometimes called "stochastic terrorism".
- hos234 7y ago
  This works the other way too. Corporate power resides in hubs and connectors that can be identified and disconnected to weaken the entire hierarchy. Lot of movements succeed because the hubs and connectors shift loyalty. Niall Ferguson has written a good book [The Square and the Tower] analyzing Historical Events from a network theoretic perspective rather than the usual historical perspective of studying just the top most person(node) in the hierarchy. It has a ton of examples of how all powerful hierarchies devolve.
throw0101a 7y ago
Another sign that we're in a new Gild Age? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
bitlax 7y ago
Unions recruit at work.
ggambetta 7y ago
OK, unpopular opinion follows, bring the downvotes. 1) All of my experiences related to unions have been negative. Things become more bureaucratic and inefficient ("oh no, you can't move that box, we need to wait for the union person whose job description is to move the box"), people are promoted because of seniority and not because of merit, bad performers up to and including flagrant criminals can't be fired because the union would rally to support them no matter how in the wrong they are, etc. 2) FAANG-type jobs have to be the cushiest jobs around. I mean, look at http://levels.fyi http://levels.fyi. Who else gets paid that kind of money right out of college, for doing a very comfortable office job, with a ton of perks on top? I get that unions might be necessary in industries where workers are actually exploited, to protect said workers. But FAANG engineers are pretty much in the opposite situation. I don't like people creating an us-vs-them situation that doesn't exist, just so they can promote their own politics. As I commented recently, if you don't like it, quit (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21636860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21636860), and let the people who go to work to, you know, do work, do it in peace.
- icegreentea2 7y ago
  There are two ways (optimistic, and cynical) to look at why you would want some form of labour organization, even in a situation like being a google engineer. The optimistic view is that they believe that Google is a great place, capable of doing great things, but hamstrung by their current environment, and that giving labour a stronger voice will let Google do the great things they believe that Google can and should do. For example, they might see that management is not listening (enough) to rank and file feedback about the viability or need of different options leading to Google's endless parade of chat applications. Or they might think that Google is moving into a realm where their internal politics and decisions will begin to become ever more under public scrutiny, and that cleaning it up will lead to greater public acceptance of Google's goals. The cynical view is that cushyness can always be removed. It's always labour's interest to lock in the benefits they have. And if you could lock it in, you should.
  - o-__-o 7y ago
    Not picking a side here just commenting.. if a Union is passed then the stock will likely tank washing up benefits for a long time (future value is diminished now that their free cash is not available for value building activities). You cannot lock in future benefits short of shutting down a company, you can assume future benefits from diligent planning and business operations but it is never guaranteed.
0x445442 7y ago
> They’re part of a three-member Republican cabal Whatever the merits of the article I have a hard time taking it seriously with this kind of language. If this kind of language were used in the other direction the author would immediately be labeled a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.
- bluejekyll 7y ago
  Is it the cabal label that bothers you? For context, the sentence before: > Ring and Kaplan want to reconsider the longtime ban on labor spying. It’s a sleazy idea, but typical for these two. So they are working together, and perhaps “cabal” is too colorful of a term, as it also implies doing it in secret. It would appear they’re quite open about it.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    What bothers me is the entire framing, that they're agents working in service to corporate overlords rather than honest people making the decisions they think are right.
  - 0x445442 7y ago
    I’m bothered by the double standard when it comes to the use of language. As someone whose politics mostly lines up Libertarian I support individuals’ freedom to organize with the goal to collective bargain. I also oppose any legislation aimed at undermining that goal.
salawat 7y ago
Labor organization will always fight an uphill battle without parallel communication infrastructure. I've been curious whether there could be a niche for cobbling together a dedicated network infrastructure for organizing labor. It'd likely be legally fraught, and constantly under siege; but I figure it could be done. Tenant based encrypted-at-rest data of chat content and schedules. An onboarding knowledgebase mechanism. These are solved problems. The biggest issue would seem to be screening people for trust to keep the Union's affairs from just finding their way back to management or having someone plant proprietary info to end up blowing the entire thing up via eDiscovery and lawsuits. It's funny how technology seems particularly useless at solving social problems and usually just serves to exacerbate them.
Porthos9K 7y ago
Anybody who's serious about labor organization needs better opsec. Don't talk union on the job. Don't use company equipment to schedule meetings. Don't meet in large groups. Don't post on publicly accessible/searchable networks. Adopt a cell structure. Management should not know workers are talking union until the workers are organized and on strike. Fuck Taft-Hartley and the NLRB.
claudeganon 7y ago
Counter to what you see touted on this website, unions are not solely about securing additional material benefits for workers. They are and have always been about changing workplaces from top-down, authoritarian models to ones where workers have a say in their company’s work and overall direction. They’re about acknowledging that none of these structures function or accomplish anything without labor and shifting their relations of power to reflect this reality. So while some tech jobs might be quite cushy, I’ve yet to see any rational or coherent defense of why these (or any) companies should function like dictatorships. It would seems that increasingly, more and more tech workers share this perspective.
- friedman23 7y ago
  If I buy a sewing machine and hire someone to operate it, outside of basic safety rights why should the employee have any say in what I decide should be created with it?
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    Why shouldn’t they? Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers? I’m being a bit hyperbolic here, but it’s funny that the circumstances you cite (sewing, basic safety) actually drove unionization in the early 20th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_... Turns out that if you don’t change the relations of power in your workplace, hold your bosses to account, they have a tendency to not be too concerned about your well-being.
    - ggambetta 7y ago
      > Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers? Why do you insist in throwing the word "dictatorship" around? Owning a sewing machine and paying someone to use it on your behalf should absolutely bestow you the power to choose what that person makes for you, while being paid by you, and while using your machine. How can this be controversial?
Apes 7y ago
Do know evil.
DoubleGlazing 7y ago
I think unions have been pretty poor at using technology to circumvent corporate spying and interference. If the employer is frustrating attempts by employees to meet and discuss issues, then they should be able to take their discussions online. An online forum managed by the union is all that would be needed. But crucially, the union would need to be smart about who they give access to and also have good security people analysing usage/IP addresses and the like. Also make users agree to a declaration that they are legitimate users before granting access. If company spy does get access the union should send lawyers after them for accessing a computer system without permission. Of course it wouldn't be perfect, stuff will leak - but it would be a lot more secure that discussing union issues on company premises and on company equipment. Maybe I'm looking at the issue too simplistically, but I find it odd that in this day and age unions still try to organise and discuss things the way they did decades ago.

93 points by jrepinc 7y ago

And network analysis enables them to spot the early stages of organizations forming, and their "trajectory", and potentially to intervene to ensure they don't gain traction and get to a critical stage where they are highly likely to go "mainstream". I did have links to a couple of papers describing this, but misplaced them, and google isn't forthcoming...

TeMPOraL 7y ago
It's true, but I wonder if the way employees organize themselves will transform in such a way to make graph analysis less useful - similarly to how recent protests seem to work. From what I've read about Occupy protests, the Yellow Vests, and now Hong Kong protesters, they're all spontaneous and decentralized. Instead of an individual or a small group of leaders energizing the movement, there's something of a shared idea (a meme, if you like) flowing through the network, and once it crosses a threshold, you suddenly have thousands of people protesting. (This immediately suggests a strategy to combat such organization: instead of trying to find out who the leaders are - which will fail, because there are none - one should focus on misinformation to create enough doubt and noise that the threshold for spontaneous organization isn't crossed.)
- jacknews 7y ago
  Indeed, and it seem to me these countermeasures are exactly the method that's being employed by the likes of Putin and Trump. In google's case, I think they're just analyzing employee emails etc.
  - sodosopa 7y ago
    > In google's case, I think they're just analyzing employee emails etc. That’s why it’s ill advised to use company email for personal communication. Do it over telegram on your personal devices.
- CM30 7y ago
  Yeah, I think this is definitely the way future labour movements will go. That said, the decentralised setup has its own issues too. In addition to the misinformatioon aspect you point out, it makes it very difficult to control the 'reputation' of a protest or movement, since any Tom, Dick and Harry can claim to be associated with it and do whatever they want. This makes such an organisation easy to co-opt, or to misrepresent to the media.
- mc32 7y ago
  Have the yellow vests achieved anything? Not that that protests have to achieve major results. Sometimes the main thing is to get exposure so that powers that be realize there is foment that needs addressing (in a positive way, not in a crackdown way).
  - sojmq 7y ago
    Democracy is a sham, something to keep the masses in check. In this day and age you won't get shit just by protesting.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Have the yellow vests achieved anything? Yes. Quite a lot. The leadership went from not acknowledging their protests, talking down on them and promising to go on with all the reforms, to want to talk, and taking down certain parts of the laws.
- pjc50 7y ago
  This is quite noticeable among the modern far right; there have been a number of mass shooters who cite the same arguments and articles in their manifestoes, but there isn't any kind of conventional authority linking them. No command-and-control relationship or terrorist cell. Sometimes called "stochastic terrorism".
hos234 7y ago
This works the other way too. Corporate power resides in hubs and connectors that can be identified and disconnected to weaken the entire hierarchy. Lot of movements succeed because the hubs and connectors shift loyalty. Niall Ferguson has written a good book [The Square and the Tower] analyzing Historical Events from a network theoretic perspective rather than the usual historical perspective of studying just the top most person(node) in the hierarchy. It has a ton of examples of how all powerful hierarchies devolve.

throw0101a 7y ago

Another sign that we're in a new Gild Age? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age

bitlax 7y ago

Unions recruit at work.

ggambetta 7y ago

OK, unpopular opinion follows, bring the downvotes. 1) All of my experiences related to unions have been negative. Things become more bureaucratic and inefficient ("oh no, you can't move that box, we need to wait for the union person whose job description is to move the box"), people are promoted because of seniority and not because of merit, bad performers up to and including flagrant criminals can't be fired because the union would rally to support them no matter how in the wrong they are, etc. 2) FAANG-type jobs have to be the cushiest jobs around. I mean, look at http://levels.fyi http://levels.fyi. Who else gets paid that kind of money right out of college, for doing a very comfortable office job, with a ton of perks on top? I get that unions might be necessary in industries where workers are actually exploited, to protect said workers. But FAANG engineers are pretty much in the opposite situation. I don't like people creating an us-vs-them situation that doesn't exist, just so they can promote their own politics. As I commented recently, if you don't like it, quit (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21636860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21636860), and let the people who go to work to, you know, do work, do it in peace.

icegreentea2 7y ago
There are two ways (optimistic, and cynical) to look at why you would want some form of labour organization, even in a situation like being a google engineer. The optimistic view is that they believe that Google is a great place, capable of doing great things, but hamstrung by their current environment, and that giving labour a stronger voice will let Google do the great things they believe that Google can and should do. For example, they might see that management is not listening (enough) to rank and file feedback about the viability or need of different options leading to Google's endless parade of chat applications. Or they might think that Google is moving into a realm where their internal politics and decisions will begin to become ever more under public scrutiny, and that cleaning it up will lead to greater public acceptance of Google's goals. The cynical view is that cushyness can always be removed. It's always labour's interest to lock in the benefits they have. And if you could lock it in, you should.
- o-__-o 7y ago
  Not picking a side here just commenting.. if a Union is passed then the stock will likely tank washing up benefits for a long time (future value is diminished now that their free cash is not available for value building activities). You cannot lock in future benefits short of shutting down a company, you can assume future benefits from diligent planning and business operations but it is never guaranteed.

0x445442 7y ago

> They’re part of a three-member Republican cabal Whatever the merits of the article I have a hard time taking it seriously with this kind of language. If this kind of language were used in the other direction the author would immediately be labeled a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

bluejekyll 7y ago
Is it the cabal label that bothers you? For context, the sentence before: > Ring and Kaplan want to reconsider the longtime ban on labor spying. It’s a sleazy idea, but typical for these two. So they are working together, and perhaps “cabal” is too colorful of a term, as it also implies doing it in secret. It would appear they’re quite open about it.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  What bothers me is the entire framing, that they're agents working in service to corporate overlords rather than honest people making the decisions they think are right.
- 0x445442 7y ago
  I’m bothered by the double standard when it comes to the use of language. As someone whose politics mostly lines up Libertarian I support individuals’ freedom to organize with the goal to collective bargain. I also oppose any legislation aimed at undermining that goal.

salawat 7y ago

Labor organization will always fight an uphill battle without parallel communication infrastructure. I've been curious whether there could be a niche for cobbling together a dedicated network infrastructure for organizing labor. It'd likely be legally fraught, and constantly under siege; but I figure it could be done. Tenant based encrypted-at-rest data of chat content and schedules. An onboarding knowledgebase mechanism. These are solved problems. The biggest issue would seem to be screening people for trust to keep the Union's affairs from just finding their way back to management or having someone plant proprietary info to end up blowing the entire thing up via eDiscovery and lawsuits. It's funny how technology seems particularly useless at solving social problems and usually just serves to exacerbate them.

Porthos9K 7y ago

Anybody who's serious about labor organization needs better opsec. Don't talk union on the job. Don't use company equipment to schedule meetings. Don't meet in large groups. Don't post on publicly accessible/searchable networks. Adopt a cell structure. Management should not know workers are talking union until the workers are organized and on strike. Fuck Taft-Hartley and the NLRB.

claudeganon 7y ago

Counter to what you see touted on this website, unions are not solely about securing additional material benefits for workers. They are and have always been about changing workplaces from top-down, authoritarian models to ones where workers have a say in their company’s work and overall direction. They’re about acknowledging that none of these structures function or accomplish anything without labor and shifting their relations of power to reflect this reality. So while some tech jobs might be quite cushy, I’ve yet to see any rational or coherent defense of why these (or any) companies should function like dictatorships. It would seems that increasingly, more and more tech workers share this perspective.

friedman23 7y ago
If I buy a sewing machine and hire someone to operate it, outside of basic safety rights why should the employee have any say in what I decide should be created with it?
- claudeganon 7y ago
  Why shouldn’t they? Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers? I’m being a bit hyperbolic here, but it’s funny that the circumstances you cite (sewing, basic safety) actually drove unionization in the early 20th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_... Turns out that if you don’t change the relations of power in your workplace, hold your bosses to account, they have a tendency to not be too concerned about your well-being.
  - ggambetta 7y ago
    > Does owning a sewing machine suddenly bestow upon you dictatorial powers? Why do you insist in throwing the word "dictatorship" around? Owning a sewing machine and paying someone to use it on your behalf should absolutely bestow you the power to choose what that person makes for you, while being paid by you, and while using your machine. How can this be controversial?

Apes 7y ago

Do know evil.

DoubleGlazing 7y ago

I think unions have been pretty poor at using technology to circumvent corporate spying and interference. If the employer is frustrating attempts by employees to meet and discuss issues, then they should be able to take their discussions online. An online forum managed by the union is all that would be needed. But crucially, the union would need to be smart about who they give access to and also have good security people analysing usage/IP addresses and the like. Also make users agree to a declaration that they are legitimate users before granting access. If company spy does get access the union should send lawyers after them for accessing a computer system without permission. Of course it wouldn't be perfect, stuff will leak - but it would be a lot more secure that discussing union issues on company premises and on company equipment. Maybe I'm looking at the issue too simplistically, but I find it odd that in this day and age unions still try to organise and discuss things the way they did decades ago.