37 ms·

The most salient part of this essay was the last section. Remote-first is forming in a way to break tech labor power. Employees will be less able to bond, and t

The most salient part of this essay was the last section. Remote-first is forming in a way to break tech labor power. Employees will be less able to bond, and their personal conversations will be easier to spy upon. This will drastically inhibit collectivization. WFH may have some upside, but there’s a huge downside looming. > Remote-First, Collective-Last > Lastly, let’s talk about the impact of remote-first on labor. Many months, before the virus hit, a CEO friend of mine “jokingly” told me that he believed all the “remote” buzz was as much about reducing the collective power of the employees as it was about saving a dime on salaries. He personally did not want his company to go full-remote but was under some pressure from investors to consider it. We were both hammered at the time, and I didn’t put too much thought into it, but it feels right the more I think about it.

ssorallen 6y ago
Agreed, I found this to be the revelatory part of the post. It’s difficult enough in person to try to organize demands from management, I hadn’t considered how much more difficult that will become with a distributed workforce.
Mandatum 6y ago
I connect with my colleagues on LinkedIn for this reason alone. It allows us to have discourse outside of work-sanctioned chatrooms. Having said that, I've never worked at a place where anything has resulted from private communications I've had with my peers. And it would have, had it been posted on the wall in the breakroom.
- programmarchy 6y ago
  Will you trust LinkedIn to keep your data private when your employer (or a future employer) hands them a big fat check? Not trying to be snarky just want to point out the exposure points.
JSavageOne 6y ago
> Employees will be less able to bond, and their personal conversations will be easier to spy upon. How does the freedom to work remotely make one more prone to being "spied on" than being in an office? Also, when did tech have any "labor" power? Last time I checked any talk of "unionization" will get you fired at the drop of a dime.
- programmarchy 6y ago
  Because the majority of remote work communication will be electronic rather than face to face. It will be monitored, stored and searchable (Slack logs, GSuite email, etc.) That’s much more difficult to achieve at the proverbial water cooler. Not sure which rock you’re living under, but tech is probably the last bastion of labor power in the US. Sure, they aren’t well organized, but Google employees recently canned a DoD contract [1]. Saying no to Uncle Sam is a huge flex, and you can bet that pissed off some overlords. Blue collar workers in the US have lost almost all of their labor power due to offshore workers or immigration (i.e. scabs). Tech has had it easy for a while now, but it’s the next target; the immigration debate is already shifting from “jobs Americans won’t do” to “merit-based”. Gig economy is another false liberation ploy being used to weaken collective bargaining power. Remote-first is yet another. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/01/google-to-drop-pentagon-ai-contract-after-employees-called-it-the-business-of-war/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/01...
  - JSavageOne 6y ago
    > Because the majority of remote work communication will be electronic rather than face to face. It will be monitored, stored and searchable (Slack logs, GSuite email, etc.) That’s much more difficult to achieve at the proverbial water cooler. The majority of communication is already electronic. I've worked in offices and remote, there is practically no difference on that front. Most discussion takes place in Slack, Jira, GitHub, and email either way. Most companies already have team members distributed across various offices, remote work isn't new. If you want to avoid monitoring, then spin up a Google Hangouts or Zoom meeting, nobody is monitoring that. The difference is that in an office, 1. your physical presence is also monitored (no joke I worked at a office once where every day an office assistant would secretly record what time everyone showed up to their desks) 2. your internet is also monitored, which is extremely creepy and I'm surprised this doesn't get more attention. When I work remotely, there are no IT managers able to spy on my internet traffic. Sure there may be some dystopian corporations who try to force their remote workers to log into "company VPNs" and install "monitoring software" - I have absolutely no interest in working for any such companies and have never had to deal with that. As a software engineer I've been fighting for the freedom to work remotely for ever since I joined this industry, so having the freedom to live wherever I want, and work whenever I want is a huge win. I've already been working remotely since pre-COVID, so I'm happy that other workers will also be able to enjoy this freedom.
statguy 6y ago
> The most salient part of this essay was the last section. Remote-first is forming in a way to break tech labor power. Employees will be less able to bond, and their personal conversations will be easier to spy upon. Slightly tangential to this thread, but isn't this also tacit admission that employees will be collectively less creative when working remotely.
crocal 6y ago
If only one company goes remote, then the collective power of employees certainly goes down (« divide and conquer «) But if the entire /job market/ goes remote and access to the net is a public commodity, then you can apply for all jobs /anywhere/. Employees bargaining power increases significantly. Furthermore, any employee can start his/her competing business in an instant. As a side effect, wages can go down but if you don’t work in the bay area you can come out /better off/. So it’s not clear if the downside is going to be related to worker’s rights. I am personally more worried on the societal / mental issues with WFH.
granshaw 6y ago
Agreed that that was the most interesting part of the essay, but not with the “easier to spy upon” part - I’ve been working remotely for years now and whenever a conversation leads anywhere close to being “sensitive” (eg, even talk of potential side projects) I just quickly open a non work communication channel and do it there (eg another Slack, fb messenger, what have you)
Ericson2314 6y ago
Yes! So sad I have scroll so far down to see this. There is a huge risk here that we will be isolated more than ever, and yet more dependent upon other unseen actors---the contrast between these two phenomena is one of downsides of capitalism in practice, and this can crank it up. Here are some crucial steps we must take in defense: - Make sure working with non-employees is legal: no non-disclosure agreements saying you can't work in coffee shop or other shared space because of potential of overhearing. This would be the best hope - Towns or cheaper cities, not exurbs. People must know their neighbors better if they know their coworkers less. Time spent walking around the office must be replaced with time spent walking elsewhere. - More Aggressive anti-trust. If labor becomes more balkanized, capital must also be. - Workers on boards. Like Germany, if you grow past a certain size this needs to be mandated. Notice the last two point to the two healthy solutions: decentralized small businesses economy vs giant co-op socialism. The point is to basically all institutions must score high enough on the sum decentralization or democracy, and that the total of the two is far more important then the relative merits of each.

ssorallen 6y ago

Agreed, I found this to be the revelatory part of the post. It’s difficult enough in person to try to organize demands from management, I hadn’t considered how much more difficult that will become with a distributed workforce.

Mandatum 6y ago

I connect with my colleagues on LinkedIn for this reason alone. It allows us to have discourse outside of work-sanctioned chatrooms. Having said that, I've never worked at a place where anything has resulted from private communications I've had with my peers. And it would have, had it been posted on the wall in the breakroom.

programmarchy 6y ago
Will you trust LinkedIn to keep your data private when your employer (or a future employer) hands them a big fat check? Not trying to be snarky just want to point out the exposure points.

JSavageOne 6y ago

> Employees will be less able to bond, and their personal conversations will be easier to spy upon. How does the freedom to work remotely make one more prone to being "spied on" than being in an office? Also, when did tech have any "labor" power? Last time I checked any talk of "unionization" will get you fired at the drop of a dime.

programmarchy 6y ago
Because the majority of remote work communication will be electronic rather than face to face. It will be monitored, stored and searchable (Slack logs, GSuite email, etc.) That’s much more difficult to achieve at the proverbial water cooler. Not sure which rock you’re living under, but tech is probably the last bastion of labor power in the US. Sure, they aren’t well organized, but Google employees recently canned a DoD contract [1]. Saying no to Uncle Sam is a huge flex, and you can bet that pissed off some overlords. Blue collar workers in the US have lost almost all of their labor power due to offshore workers or immigration (i.e. scabs). Tech has had it easy for a while now, but it’s the next target; the immigration debate is already shifting from “jobs Americans won’t do” to “merit-based”. Gig economy is another false liberation ploy being used to weaken collective bargaining power. Remote-first is yet another. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/01/google-to-drop-pentagon-ai-contract-after-employees-called-it-the-business-of-war/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/01...
- JSavageOne 6y ago
  > Because the majority of remote work communication will be electronic rather than face to face. It will be monitored, stored and searchable (Slack logs, GSuite email, etc.) That’s much more difficult to achieve at the proverbial water cooler. The majority of communication is already electronic. I've worked in offices and remote, there is practically no difference on that front. Most discussion takes place in Slack, Jira, GitHub, and email either way. Most companies already have team members distributed across various offices, remote work isn't new. If you want to avoid monitoring, then spin up a Google Hangouts or Zoom meeting, nobody is monitoring that. The difference is that in an office, 1. your physical presence is also monitored (no joke I worked at a office once where every day an office assistant would secretly record what time everyone showed up to their desks) 2. your internet is also monitored, which is extremely creepy and I'm surprised this doesn't get more attention. When I work remotely, there are no IT managers able to spy on my internet traffic. Sure there may be some dystopian corporations who try to force their remote workers to log into "company VPNs" and install "monitoring software" - I have absolutely no interest in working for any such companies and have never had to deal with that. As a software engineer I've been fighting for the freedom to work remotely for ever since I joined this industry, so having the freedom to live wherever I want, and work whenever I want is a huge win. I've already been working remotely since pre-COVID, so I'm happy that other workers will also be able to enjoy this freedom.

statguy 6y ago

> The most salient part of this essay was the last section. Remote-first is forming in a way to break tech labor power. Employees will be less able to bond, and their personal conversations will be easier to spy upon. Slightly tangential to this thread, but isn't this also tacit admission that employees will be collectively less creative when working remotely.

crocal 6y ago

If only one company goes remote, then the collective power of employees certainly goes down (« divide and conquer «) But if the entire /job market/ goes remote and access to the net is a public commodity, then you can apply for all jobs /anywhere/. Employees bargaining power increases significantly. Furthermore, any employee can start his/her competing business in an instant. As a side effect, wages can go down but if you don’t work in the bay area you can come out /better off/. So it’s not clear if the downside is going to be related to worker’s rights. I am personally more worried on the societal / mental issues with WFH.

granshaw 6y ago

Agreed that that was the most interesting part of the essay, but not with the “easier to spy upon” part - I’ve been working remotely for years now and whenever a conversation leads anywhere close to being “sensitive” (eg, even talk of potential side projects) I just quickly open a non work communication channel and do it there (eg another Slack, fb messenger, what have you)

Ericson2314 6y ago

Yes! So sad I have scroll so far down to see this. There is a huge risk here that we will be isolated more than ever, and yet more dependent upon other unseen actors---the contrast between these two phenomena is one of downsides of capitalism in practice, and this can crank it up. Here are some crucial steps we must take in defense: - Make sure working with non-employees is legal: no non-disclosure agreements saying you can't work in coffee shop or other shared space because of potential of overhearing. This would be the best hope - Towns or cheaper cities, not exurbs. People must know their neighbors better if they know their coworkers less. Time spent walking around the office must be replaced with time spent walking elsewhere. - More Aggressive anti-trust. If labor becomes more balkanized, capital must also be. - Workers on boards. Like Germany, if you grow past a certain size this needs to be mandated. Notice the last two point to the two healthy solutions: decentralized small businesses economy vs giant co-op socialism. The point is to basically all institutions must score high enough on the sum decentralization or democracy, and that the total of the two is far more important then the relative merits of each.