[sfcguyus]

Would be more meaningful if they quit in protest to a lower paying job. This type of protest is merely exercise or a routine jog.

[dcre]

If they quit they don't have leverage at Google anymore. This is why unions exist: they can threaten to quit, extract concessions, and not quit.

[leereeves]

When negotiation fails, unions extract concessions by trying to prevent anyone (members or not) from doing the work.

Unions are rather weak when they can't prevent employers from hiring strikebreakers.

[notacoward]

Yes, because there's an infinite supply of completely interchangeable workers, and no costs associated with hiring or training.

[leereeves]

Yes, those are two obstacles that employers face when hiring strikebreakers, along with more significant obstacles like laws forbidding strikebreakers, licensing, and union violence.

The common factor is that it's not enough to refuse to work, unions must be able to ensure that no one does the work.

[notacoward]

> unions must be able to ensure that no one does the work.

Often the barrier is natural, such as with folks at Google who built the systems and are (collectively) the only ones who can keep them running without significant interruption. By what authority, for what compelling reason, would you abridge their freedom of association (or in this case non-association)?

[leereeves]

I wouldn't, they should be free to work or not as they choose. But they shouldn't be able to abridge anyone else's freedom and I doubt they're as irreplaceable as you think.