Surveillance, Spacing, Screaming and Scabbing: How Digital Technology Facilitates Union Busting

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 effort–at Amazon, Starbucks, and Boston 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.

💡 Research Summary

This paper investigates how contemporary digital technologies are weaponized by employers in the United States to undermine labor union organizing. Drawing on three high‑profile campaigns—Amazon’s warehouse workers, Starbucks baristas, and faculty/staff at Boston University—the authors identify four recurring, technology‑mediated tactics they label Surveillance, Spacing, Screaming, and Scabbing.

The authors begin by noting a paradox: while a large majority of Americans express favorable views of unions, union membership remains low, especially in the private sector. They argue that employer “counter‑organizing”—deliberate actions to prevent relationship‑building among workers—is a key driver, and that recent advances in workplace digital infrastructure have amplified these efforts.

A literature review situates the work within Human‑Computer Interaction (HCI) research on workplace surveillance, algorithmic management, and labor‑supportive tools (e.g., Turkopticon, Dynamo). It also draws on labor process theory and the “6 Rs” framework (restricting, recommending, recording, rating, replacing, rewarding) to conceptualize employer control. The gap identified is the lack of systematic analysis of how employers actively deploy technology against specific organizing drives.

Methodologically, the study adopts an exploratory “case‑struggle” approach. The three cases were selected because digital tools played a documented role in the employer’s anti‑union response, and because they span service‑oriented, high‑visibility workplaces. The authors assembled a corpus of public documents, news articles, NLRB filings, internal memos, and activist testimonies, coding them for technological interventions.

Analysis yields four core tactics:

1. Surveillance – Employers collect granular digital traces (chat logs, app usage, POS data) to identify pro‑union employees, generate risk scores, and issue targeted warnings or disciplinary actions. Amazon monitors internal messaging; Starbucks cross‑references sales data with shift schedules to predict organizing hotspots.

2. Spacing – Physical and digital spacing tactics limit worker interaction. Employers manipulate shift patterns to reduce overlap, restrict or silo internal communication channels, and enforce “work‑only” messaging platforms, thereby fracturing the social networks essential for power‑mapping and collective action.

3. Screaming – Persistent anti‑union propaganda is disseminated through mandatory emails, push notifications, digital signage, and intranet banners. The messaging is often non‑opt‑out, creating a constant psychological pressure that erodes morale and discourages participation.

4. Scabbing – Companies leverage gig‑platforms, temporary staffing apps, and automated routing systems to replace striking workers quickly. Amazon reroutes orders to other fulfillment centers; Starbucks hires contract baristas via digital marketplaces, feeding them with the displaced employees’ operational data to minimize disruption.

These tactics are not isolated; they reinforce each other. Surveillance identifies targets for spacing and screaming, while scabbing neutralizes the impact of any remaining organizing momentum. The authors term this integrated set a “technology‑mediated counter‑organizing regime.”

The paper contributes two main insights to HCI. First, it expands the focus from worker‑centric tool design to a critical examination of employer‑driven technology as a mechanism of labor suppression. Second, it provides a conceptual taxonomy (Surveillance, Spacing, Screaming, Scabbing) that can serve as a diagnostic framework for future studies and for designing counter‑measures.

Design implications include: (a) building transparency dashboards that expose surveillance data and give workers control over its collection; (b) supporting multi‑channel, encrypted, and opt‑out capable communication tools; (c) enabling selective filtering or blocking of employer‑issued anti‑union messages; and (d) integrating union‑friendly features into gig‑platforms (e.g., collective bargaining hooks, data sharing safeguards).

In conclusion, the authors argue that digital technology has become a central pillar of modern union busting, creating a sophisticated, multi‑layered regime that threatens workers’ ability to organize. They call for broader interdisciplinary research across more industries and jurisdictions, as well as policy interventions and activist‑driven technology development to restore balance in digitally mediated workplaces.