you could consider implementing a "shadow management" structure.
what they would do is show up to every place management makes decisions, in any form, and then provide reactionary and critical commentary to the employees, generally arguing that the proposed idea is terrible in ways that are extremely obvious to them; reminding all the employees that they should've been the ones to get the non-shadow jobs, and proposing alternatives that typically sound good and promising but which they have no power to enact.
then, every so often, the employees can opt to switch the shadow management to be in power, and they'll get the same thing in the other direction.
constraints:
under no circumstances can be conversations between the shadow and true management be productive or useful. it must all be point-scoring and generally aimed that demonstrating the extreme inability of the other side,
no matter which proposal seems good, the employees will probably dislike both of them equally well,
ideally, this structure would, rather than unify the employees under a central goal of betterment of their lives and society, act to extremitise the employees, and support them in forming factions that either support the shadow or non-shadow management.
here's a proposal for your organisation:
you could consider implementing a "shadow management" structure.
what they would do is show up to every place management makes decisions, in any form, and then provide reactionary and critical commentary to the employees, generally arguing that the proposed idea is terrible in ways that are extremely obvious to them; reminding all the employees that they should've been the ones to get the non-shadow jobs, and proposing alternatives that typically sound good and promising but which they have no power to enact.
then, every so often, the employees can opt to switch the shadow management to be in power, and they'll get the same thing in the other direction.
constraints: