The tech worker movement grew out of a period when many employees believed the internet and related technologies could help build a more progressive world. A new book by MIT PhD student JS Tan SM ’22 and Clarissa Redwine examines how that belief turned into workplace organizing, public protest, and pressure campaigns inside some of the world’s most powerful technology companies.
Their book, Against Tech Oligarchy: Worker Resistance in the World’s Most Powerful Industry, was published by Haymarket Books, 2026. It looks at how tech workers organized, what tactics gained traction, and why the movement’s influence has weakened after several years of visible activism.
From Industry Optimism To Employee Doubt
After the “dot-com crash” in 2000, the tech industry still remained an appealing destination for many workers. Global connectivity and computers had become central to modern life, and technology companies offered high-paying roles to engineers, designers, and professionals across many fields.
Tan was one of the people drawn into that world. After graduating from Brown University and Rhode Island School of Design in 2015, he joined the tech industry. He later described the atmosphere this way: “A lot of us had this idea that technology, and in particular the technologies related to the internet, had the potential for bringing about a more progressive version of the world.”
That optimism was reinforced by corporate language. Google, for example, was known for the motto “don’t be evil,” which served as an informal corporate philosophy and code of conduct guideline before the company dropped the tagline.
Over time, however, some employees began to question whether their employers were still aligned with the democratic and progressive values they had once associated with the industry. Tan connects that shift especially to the start of the first Trump administration, when workers began publicly challenging company decisions with a new level of visibility.
The Moment Tech Workers Found Leverage
In 2017, Tan was working at Microsoft and Redwine was working at Kickstarter. That year, President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending entry into the United States for nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days, and suspending Syrian refugees from entering the country indefinitely.
Tan says the tech sector broadly resisted the order. He points to OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman, who participated in airport protests and argued in a Jan. 28, 2017, blog post that employees had power because technology companies worked hard to recruit and keep them.
“Tech companies go to extraordinary lengths to recruit and retain employees; those employees have a lot of leverage. If employees push companies to do something, I believe they’ll have to. At a minimum, companies should take a public stance. But talking is only somewhat effective, and employees should push their companies to figure out what actions they can take.”
According to Tan, that message helped encourage workers across the industry to speak publicly and “push for the values they believed in.” In the years that followed, employees staged walkouts and objected to employer contracts with U.S. military and immigration enforcement agencies. They also protested workplace policies they considered sexist.
The movement was not only symbolic. In 2018, Google employees protested Project Maven, a Pentagon initiative that used artificial intelligence to analyze drone surveillance footage. Nearly 4,000 employees signed an open letter to their CEO stating, “Google should not be in the business of war.” Google then decided not to renew the contract.
Why The Balance Shifted
The book argues that tech worker influence has declined because several pressures changed the labor landscape. One was the market shock that followed interest rate hikes in 2022. Tan says the tech industry lost hundreds of billions in market valuation, then looked for ways to reduce costs, with employee salaries standing out as a major expense.
That changed the practical position of workers. When the labor market was strong, employees could more credibly challenge management. When the market weakened, employers had more room to reassert control.
Tan also points to agentic AI coding systems. In his view, these systems have changed the nature of tech work by deskilling workers and making job security feel more uncertain. That uncertainty matters because organizing depends on workers believing they can take collective risks.
Tan summarizes the weakness of that moment directly: “Tech workers had to face these shocks on their own. With a union or some ability to coordinate across workers and bargain as a group, they might’ve had more power to actually push back.”
The contrast with earlier worker campaigns is sharp. Earlier this year, more than 600 employees signed an open letter urging Google’s CEO to reject classified AI work with the Pentagon, citing concerns including lethal autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance. Tan says Google’s response reflected a different posture: “Too bad, we’re committed to working with the Pentagon.”
A Movement Documented From Inside
Tan and Redwine are not writing as distant observers. Both had experience with organizing in the tech sector. Redwine was a prominent organizer in the union drive at Kickstarter. She was fired in 2019; Redwine said the dismissal was retaliation for organizing activity, while Kickstarter denied that claim.
Tan enrolled at MIT in 2020 and earned a master’s degree at the MIT Media Lab. He is now a doctoral student in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, where his work focuses on the political economy of the tech sector.
The authors began writing the book in 2024. One reason, according to the source article, was their sense that the capacity for labor organizing among tech workers had reached a new low. The project gave them a way to revisit the past decade and analyze how a movement that once seemed capable of changing employer behavior had entered what Tan called a state of paralysis.
For Tan, the question is still tied to the design and use of technology. “Tech workers want to have a say over the way their technologies are designed,” he says. “They want to be able to push for the right guardrails around technologies that they’re building.”
What The Book Adds To The Debate
Against Tech Oligarchy frames the tech worker labor movement as a story about power, not only workplace culture. The central issue is whether employees inside dominant technology companies can meaningfully influence corporate decisions about military contracts, immigration enforcement, workplace policy, artificial intelligence, and the guardrails around new systems.
The book’s timeline shows a movement that won visible victories, then faced a more difficult environment. The facts Tan emphasizes are practical: weaker market conditions, anxiety around agentic AI coding systems, and a lack of coordinated bargaining power all made worker resistance harder to sustain.
A book launch and discussion about Against Tech Oligarchy, co-hosted by the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, will take place on Oct. 26.