This article analyses the experiences of US and Canadian call centre workers and their unions with the shift from physical call centres to ‘work from home’ (WFH) arrangements. Drawing on interviews, focus groups and a worker survey, the authors find that the shift enabled new forms of spatial control grounded in worker preferences for remote work and associated with different forms of precarity. Management control over the physical location of work could increase job insecurity; control over the costs and risk associated with WFH arrangements could increase income insecurity; and control over communication between workers and with their unions could increase collective representation and voice insecurity. Local unions engaged in modes of resistance to spatial control, but with uneven success. Findings suggest that labour power requires union strategies that both defend WFH rights and develop protections targeted at forms of precarity associated with being able to work from home.
AbgellerNBachmannRDobbinsT, et al. (2024) Responsible autonomy: the interplay of autonomy, control and trust for knowledge professionals working remotely during COVID-19. Economic and Industrial Democracy45(1): 57–82.
2.
AloisiADe StefanoV (2022) Essential jobs, remote work and digital surveillance: addressing the COVID-19 pandemic panopticon. International Labour Review161(2): 289–314.
3.
BeckerWJBelkinLYTuskeySE, et al. (2022) Surviving remotely: how job control and loneliness during a forced shift to remote work impacted employee work behaviors and well-being. Human Resource Management61(4): 449–464.
4.
BravermanH (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
5.
BurawoyM (1982) Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
CameronLDRahmanH (2022) Expanding the locus of resistance: understanding the co-constitution of control and resistance in the gig economy. Organization Science33(1): 38–58.
7.
CampbellSGreenwoodMPriorS, et al. (2020) Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing25(8): 652–661.
8.
ChristophersonSClarkJ (2007) Power in firm networks: What it means for regional innovation systems. Regional Studies41(9): 1223–1236.
9.
DeddenBDe SpiegelaereSHickM (2023) Remote work: ensuring trade union and workers’ rights through collective bargaining. In: CountourisNDe StefanoVPiasnaA, et al. (eds) The Future of Remote Work. Belgium, Brussels: European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), 127–145.
10.
DoellgastV (2022) Exit, Voice, and Solidarity: Contesting Precarity in the US and European Telecommunications Industries. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11.
DonnellyRJohnsJ (2021) Recontextualising remote working and its HRM in the digital economy: an integrated framework for theory and practice. The International Journal of Human Resource Management32(1): 84–105.
12.
EllemB (2016) Geographies of the labour process: automation and the spatiality of mining. Work, Employment and Society30(6): 932–948.
13.
EricksonCLNorlanderP (2022) How the past of outsourcing and offshoring is the future of post-pandemic remote work: a typology, a model and a review. Industrial Relations Journal53(1): 71–89.
14.
FanWMoenP (2023) Ongoing remote work, returning to working at work, or in between during COVID-19: What promotes subjective well-being?Journal of Health and Social Behavior64(1): 152–171.
15.
FanaMMassimoFSMoroA (2022) Autonomy and control in mass remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-occupational comparison. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations77(3): 1–19.
16.
FelsteadAHensekeG (2017) Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being and work-life balance. New Technology, Work and Employment32(3): 195–212.
17.
FelsteadAJewsonNWaltersS (2003) Managerial control of employees working at home. British Journal of Industrial Relations41(2): 241–264.
18.
GlavinPBiermanASchiemanS (2021) Über-alienated: powerless and alone in the gig economy. Work and Occupations48(4): 399–431.
19.
GroenBAVan TriestSPCoersM, et al. (2018) Managing flexible work arrangements: teleworking and output controls. European Management Journal36(6): 727–735.
20.
Gutiérrez-CroccoFMartin-CaballeroAGodoyA (2024) The impact of remote work on managerial compliance: changes in the control regime over line managers. Work, Employment and Society38(2): 527–548.
21.
Hartner-TiefenthalerMGoisaufMGerdenitschC, et al. (2021) Remote working in a public bureaucracy: redeveloping practices of managerial control when out of sight. Frontiers in Psychology12: Article 606375.
22.
HarveyD (1982) The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Blackwell.
23.
HeilandH (2021) Controlling space, controlling labour? Contested space in food delivery gig work. New Technology, Work and Employment36(1): 1–16.
24.
HerodA (2001) Labor Geographies: Workers and the Landscapes of Capitalism. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
25.
IannuzziFECampolongoF (2023) Transformed or transferred? How workers perceive managerial control over home telework: some insights from an Italian case. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations78(1): 1–18.
26.
JoyceSUmneyCWhittakerX, et al. (2023) New social relations of digital technology and the future of work: beyond technological determinism. New Technology, Work and Employment38(2): 145–161.
27.
KelliherCAndersonD (2010) Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations63(1): 83–106.
28.
LaßIWoodenM (2023) Working from home and work–family conflict. Work, Employment and Society37(1): 176–195.
29.
LévesqueCMurrayG (2010) Understanding union power: resources and capabilities for renewing union capacity. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research16(3): 333–350.
30.
LinL (2021) Control and consent in the connected age: the work of contractors on transnational online education platforms. Socio-Economic Review19(4): 1291–1313.
31.
LuneHBergBL (2017) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 9th edn.Harlow: Pearson.
32.
MaffieMD (2020) The role of digital communities in organizing gig workers. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society59(1): 123–149.
33.
MieleFTirabeniL (2020) Digital technologies and power dynamics in the organization: a conceptual review of remote working and wearable technologies at work. Sociology Compass14(6): e12795.
34.
MilesMBHubermanM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
35.
O’BradySDoellgastVStarcevicJ (2025) Worker voice and mutual gains from remote performance management: evidence from digitalised services in North America and Germany. Human Resource Management Journal35(4): 864–878.
36.
PochicSGuillaumeC (2024) L’égalité professionnelle: un impensé de la négociation collective sur le télétravail. La Revue de l’Ires112–113(1–2): 49–75.
37.
PulignanoVMorganG (2023) The ‘grey zone’ at the interface of work and home: theorizing adaptations required by precarious work. Work, Employment and Society37(1): 257–273.
38.
RainnieAMcGrath- ChampSHerodA (2010) Making space for geography in labour process theory. In: ThompsonPSmithC (eds) Working Life: Renewing Labour Process Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 297–315.
39.
RomensAIPiroVIannuzziFE (2022) The variable geometry of bargaining: implementing unions’ strategies on remote work in Italy. Studi organizzativi: XXIV1: 129–153.
40.
RoseJBChaisonGN (1996) Linking union density and union effectiveness: the North American experience. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society35(1): 78–105.
41.
ScasserraSPartenioF (2021) Labor precariousness and strategies of women working on digital platforms: work from home, union organization and struggle for rights in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. Sociologias23: 174–206.
42.
SeghezziF (2023) Negotiation of psycho-social risks of remote working: an enterprise-level comparison in Italy and France. European Journal of Industrial Relations29(2): 141–158.
43.
SmithC (2006) The double indeterminacy of labour power: labour effort and labour mobility. Work, Employment and Society20(2): 389–402.
44.
StandingG (2011) The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
45.
TassinariAMaccarroneV (2020) Riders on the storm: workplace solidarity among gig economy couriers in Italy and the UK. Work, Employment and Society34(1): 35–54.
46.
ThompsonPSmithC (2009) Labour power and labour process: contesting the marginality of the sociology of work. Sociology43(5): 913–930.
47.
TrussonCChenGKBridgerJ (2024) ‘When the daily commute stops’: a long-distance commuter’s reflections on commuting and telecommuting across the COVID-19 pandemic. Work, Employment and Society38(1): 279–290.
48.
UmneyCStuartMBessaI, et al. (2024) Platform labour unrest in a global perspective: how, where and why do platform workers protest?Work, Employment and Society38(1): 3–26.
VeenABarrattTGoodsC (2020) Platform-capital’s ‘app-etite’ for control: a labour process analysis of food-delivery work in Australia. Work, Employment and Society34(3): 388–406.
51.
WangWXuHLiuY (2022) Platform ruralism: digital platforms and the techno-spatial fix. Geoforum131: 12–19.
52.
WheatleyDBroomeMRDobbinsT, et al. (2023) Navigating choppy water: flexibility ripple effects in the COVID-19 pandemic and the future of remote and hybrid working. Work, Employment and Society38(5): 1379–1402.
53.
WoodAJ (2020) Despotism on Demand: How Power Operates in the Flexible Workplace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
54.
WoodAJMartindaleNLehdonvirtaV (2023) Dynamics of contention in the gig economy: rage against the platform, customer or state?New Technology, Work and Employment38(2): 330–350.
55.
YangDKellyELKubzanskyLD, et al. (2023) Working from home and worker well-being: new evidence from Germany. ILR Review76(3): 504–531.
