arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2508.12579

The Future of Tech Labor: How Workers are Organizing and Transforming the Computing Industry

Abstract

The tech industry's shifting landscape and the growing precarity of its labor force have spurred unionization efforts among tech workers. These workers turn to collective action to improve their working conditions and to protest unethical practices within their workplaces. To better understand this movement, we interviewed 44 U.S.-based tech worker-organizers to examine their motivations, strategies, challenges, and future visions for labor organizing. These workers included engineers, product managers, customer support specialists, QA analysts, logistics workers, gig workers, and union staff organizers. Our findings reveal that, contrary to popular narratives of prestige and privilege within the tech industry, tech workers face fragmented and unstable work environments which contribute to their disempowerment and hinder their organizing efforts. Despite these difficulties, organizers are laying the groundwork for a more resilient tech worker movement through community building and expanding political consciousness. By situating these dynamics within broader structural and ideological forces, we identify ways for the CSCW community to build solidarity with tech workers who are materially transforming our field through their organizing efforts.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Cella M. Sum, Anna Konvicka, Mona Wang, Sarah E. Fox. 2025-08-18. The Future of Tech Labor: How Workers are Organizing and Transforming the Computing Industry. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.12579

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Comparing Human Oversight Strategies for Computer-Use Agents

LLM-powered computer-use agents (CUAs) shift users from direct manipulation to supervising an unfolding action sequence, yet existing oversight research mostly evaluates static decisions rather than real-time oversight across an agent trajectory. We compared four oversight strategies with 48 participants across 192 live web sessions. Quantitative results show that oversight strategy affected exposure to problematic actions, but not users' ability to intervene. Behavioral analysis shows why: control often returned too early or too late, creating a timing mismatch within the action sequence. Even when control arrived at the right moment, users judged whether the agent acted correctly, not whether the action was safe. Front-loading oversight into a plan did not solve this either: plans constrained unplanned actions but left unlisted safeguards unaddressed, while upfront approval inhibited runtime scrutiny. These findings show that oversight depends less on maximizing control than on aligning authority, timing, and attention with decision-critical moments.

cs.HC

Regimes of Scale in AI Meteorology

HCI work has explored the effective integration of AI/ML tools across application domains from healthcare to finance to transportation. We add to this literature with an analysis of AI/ML tools in meteorology, a domain that already uses big data and massive physics-based models. Drawing from 18 interviews with forecasters and meteorologists with varied connections to AI/ML weather modeling, we trace tensions in AI/ML weather application arising from what we call regimes of scale, different ways that AI/ML and meteorological systems make observations, data, and models scale. Rather than seeing AI/ML as a domain-agnostic tool, we argue that AI/ML methods were born from specific platform and internet infrastructures, and so they can struggle to integrate with very different (in this case meteorological) ways of organizing data pipelines.

cs.HC

"Am I Just Dumb?": Applicability, Action and Verification in Consumer IoT Security Advice

Public campaigns urge people to update their Internet of Things (IoT) devices and change default passwords. What happens when people try? We gave 28 participants in the Netherlands two pieces of government-issued advice and asked them to try applying each to three of six bestselling IoT devices (168 sessions). We located no manufacturer-set password shared across units, the kind the advice describes; the only device-level credential located was unique to its unit. Fewer than half the update sessions established firmware status. Told that a setting might not apply, no participant concluded it did not: they treated whatever related setting the interface offered as the target, and located the difficulty in themselves rather than in the advice or device. Generic advice asks people to judge what only manufacturers can state and only devices can report. Campaigns must be coordinated with device design, or replaced by secure defaults that remove the task.

cs.HC