[ChuckMcM]

Actually I was subsuming the option of unionizing into the choice of 'stay there and see how many people agree with you before you get fired.'

In my experience at Google it was clear that in Mountain View there was a program of 'managing out of the company' people who created problems. The sorts of problems they sought to minimize were disagreement or discussion that made actionable criticisms of management decisions.

As much as I dislike the actions of James Damore, his case, if it proceeds[1], has the potential to put a lot of this activity on the part of leadership into the public record. I personally think they will figure out what it will cost to buy his silence and make the case go away which won't serve the interests of the current employees.

[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/07/google-discrimination...

[RepAgent]

As a outsider I have never understood how the Google culture can work for long term.

It looks like there are platforms where informal power is gained or lost without responsibility. People who are active or vocal or member in informal groups and cliques may get into positions where they can influence corporate decision making or HR policy. Yet they are not responsible or chosen by their peers to represent them.

Damore case is good example. Allowing random individual to soapbox is not the right way to implement workplace democracy or openness in my opinion. If you want to involve workers in workplace democracy, you better have a organization for it where issues can be separated from people.