Between a tightening labour market, return-to-office mandates and bosses calling for more “masculine” leadership, the balance of power seems to be shifting against workers.
Some are turning to collective action as a visible way to clap back. Recent examples include public petitions started by staff at WPP and JPMorgan to protest against tighter rules on office attendance. Group action has also been used to expose poor treatment of women — such as at beer brand BrewDog — and decry employers’ stance on political issues such as Israel’s assault on Gaza.
Research shows a trend of increased willingness from staff to call out what they regard as unfair treatment. Polling by the Institute of Business Ethics last year found 64 per cent of employees were willing to speak up at work — up from 57 per cent in 2021.
“What we’re seeing is a shift from individual employees calling the whistleblowing line and hoping someone does something about it, to a lot more collective action and a lot more use of tools like social media and going to the media,” said Alison Taylor, NYU Stern School of Business professor and author of Higher Ground.
The rise of encrypted messaging platforms such as Telegram and Signal has facilitated this kind of direct action, Taylor added.
In a 2023 survey by law firm Herbert Smith Freehills, 59 per cent of employers said they expected employee activism to increase, with 37 per cent saying accessible channels such as social media platforms would be a big trigger.
Much of the last year has proved them correct: employers from Delta Air Lines to Meta have been hit with staff action over Gaza, while trends such as “Quit-Tok”, when employees post videos of themselves being fired, exposed poor treatment.
Collective staff action has also helped achieve change in the past. An online petition by female employees at Ted Baker highlighting the retailer’s “well documented” culture of harassment, contributed to the resignation of former chief executive Ray Kelvin, for example.
Caroline Herzig, a former team manager at the UK fashion brand, said a perception that the in-house complaints procedure was “compromised” meant she and many colleagues felt impotent before going public.
The petition sparked an internal investigation and Kelvin resigned. Herzig credits the success to the security offered by collective action. “If you’re just one person in a huge organisation, you figure anything you say will just land on deaf ears,” she said. “But collectively you can really make a change.”
The public approach can work because it hits companies where it hurts, targeting their reputation, said Amy Lockwood, executive director of Organise, which provides technology and support to help staff run petitions and other actions, including the Ted Baker campaign.
Organise encourages employees to pursue internal complaints procedures first. But workers are often left with no choice but to go public, said Lockwood.
US campaigner Robby Starbuck, who has been targeting employers for pursuing a woke agenda, thinks the ability of staff to easily film bad practice and upload it to social media promises greater accountability for bosses “who step out of line”. He said he regularly received such “citizen journalism”, although has not made it public due to verification concerns. “But if [people] are willing to send them to me,” he said, “I don’t see why they wouldn’t share them with someone else.”
However, workers in some sectors, such as US tech, say there has been a crackdown on activism following the inauguration of Donald Trump. Without institutional support from unions, or other authoritative backers outside the company, staff might find their efforts have limited impact.
“Don’t waste time on it. I don’t care how many people sign that fucking petition,” was JPMorgan chief executive Jamie Dimon’s response to staff protesting against a rule that they must work in-person five days a week, where capacity allows, according to a recording of a town-hall meeting reviewed by Reuters. The bank has declined to comment and its policy remains in place.
Some companies have adopted less public strategies to try to keep staff quiet, from promising independent investigations to suppressing dissent with non-disclosure agreements.
