Google Books (or similar) all book scans – $200k bounty (2025)

Once meetings and documentation is working, decide on a small issue that you know that more people in the workplace are annoyed by and would be an easy fix for the organisation. Then you write to the relevant boss and present the demand. Either they fix it voluntarily, or you wait a while and then you write to them again and add a demand to have a meeting about the issue.

Escalate slowly and methodically, and when you get the win, lay low for a bit and use it to recruit. Make all decisions by consensus in the beginning, don't start with majority decisions until most or all of the workers in the department have joined. Always escalate slowly and gradually, until you have the power to shut the entire organisation down on a short notice.

Act in a way that makes your union predictable to the bosses. Corporate management is easily confused and you'll prefer them to negotiate over lashing out wildly. When people are inevitably fired, keep in contact with them, both personally and through routines you establish in the union. Some people are unsuited for negotiation, documentation and so on but are good at doing phone calls and checking up on previous members and reporting back.

Focus entirely on things that are important to make the daily work less dangerous, more convenient, more rewarding. Small steps, low hanging fruit first, only one issue at a time. When you have a success, send a note about it to some local labour friendly organisation or publication.

Don't waste time on identity politics, everyone in the workplace who isn't a boss is a worker regardless of what they do or how they're compensated, the union does not need a name or bank account until you have federated with quite a large amount of people. You don't need to register some association to have meetings and make decisions, that's for when you have like a few hundred people and want to throw parties and have conferences and things like renting a place requires you to register with some bureaucracy.

Second of all, “knowledge is free” doesn’t mean it is free to generate. It means that it literally cannot be owned. Property implies scarcity. If I use a thing, it makes it so you can’t use that thing. This does not apply to something like knowledge. The fact that I use your idea doesn’t mean you can no longer make use of that idea. Your analogy is flawed, because drinking a beer means that is a beer that cannot be used by someone else. Intellectual property is an oxymoron. There is nothing actually stopping someone from making use of someone else’s knowledge, and therefore we must artificially construct barriers in order to maximize the ability to profit off of it. In the most charitable sense, this in theory provides financial incentive for people to generate knowledge. In a less charitable sense, it is literal though policing for the sole purpose of extracting money.

I get that making use of knowledge without compensating the person who produced it is “theft” under our system. The problem is not with the act. It is with the system in which knowledge work can only support an individual if these dystopian measures are enforced. Frankly, most knowledge work is built on mountains of previous knowledge work that never is compensated for it anyways, so the model of the world isn’t even internally consistent.

Therein lies the entire issue. Intellectual property is a paradox and a farce, but our current systems require IP as a concept to exist. 99% of human history existed without the concept of IP law, and yet people still innovated, learned, and shared knowledge. But now we are at a point where human beings can only survive if they have something they can productize and sell to others, and so for knowledge to be produced, it has to turned into something that is artificially scarce, so that those producing it can be compensated for their labor. Maybe this is unavoidable for this point of our evolution. I doubt it, as 99% of human history managed without the concept of IP, and we still produced and shared knowledge.

But even if it is necessary for this stage, it is still a dystopian model. And I imagine we aren’t far off from a point where we can provide for everyone’s basic needs, and therefore we don’t need to introduce artificial scarcity to make knowledge work economically viable.