[elcaminocomplex]

> Google created a culture and set of values and recruited based on that.

Company culture changes. Companies change. The fact that you were told one thing or a company had a particular reputation when you joined doesn’t mean that thing will always hold true.

Union busting and discrimination are illegal. Terminating someone’s at-will employment because they are acting against the company’s interest isn’t.

From what I have read thus far, this situation sounds a lot more like the latter than the former despite some of the people involved claiming it’s the former.

Perhaps more facts will come out to support that position, but in the meantime I am with the grandparent post. These people want to have their cake (i.e. some of the largest total compensation packages in the industry) and eat it too (force policy by protesting management choices expecting no consequences).

[elicash]

Maybe it's my fault if I didn't explain it well enough, but you don't seem to understand the point I'm making. What I was responding to wasn't whether Google was right or wrong (though I think they're wrong), but instead why it's worth it for lots of people to improve their workplace rather than just quit.

[fzeroracer]

How do you think company culture changes, if not due to people pushing the company in a certain direction?

It seems odd that you don't dispute that companies change, yet seem to dislike people trying to make a company change. Or do you believe it's only bad when the workers want things to change but find it acceptable when upper management fucks over the company culture?

[elcaminocomplex]

> It seems odd that you don't dispute that companies change, yet seem to dislike people trying to make a company change.

I don’t “dislike” people trying to make a company change. There are ways to change companies from within, discreetly, by building consensus around those things you would like to change. It isn’t easy, and there is no guarantee of success. Often people trying to do exactly that end up losing their positions, or end up not advancing, as a result of being “out of step” with the culture.

That doesn’t appear to be what’s happening here at all, though. You have employees trying to publicly exert pressure on management. You cannot do that and expect no consequences.

[elicash]

You can't retaliate against employees for speaking out publicly and expect no consequences, either. This is going to hurt Google -- in the public eye and with its workforce.

[elcaminocomplex]

> This is going to hurt Google

Possibly.

> in the public eye

I seriously doubt that. People are busy and have a lot of things to be concerned about. The general perception of SV employees doesn't seem to be very favorable from what I've seen, either within the Bay Area or beyond. The average worker in middle America is not going to feel much compassion for people making $200k a year who end up out of work because they publicly challenge their employer.

> and with its workforce.

That's the calculus that they (Google management) needs to compute. How do they deal with this situation without angering so many people that they end up losing people they want to retain. The other side of that is of course the absolute disinterest in keeping people who are not key contributors but are likely to be "activist".

FWIW, I know ~50 people at Google, and although I am not in touch with most of them on a very regular basis, of the ones I have been in touch with exactly 0 of them have any sympathy for the positions of the people who are making a public scene.

What they are concerned with is the company being seen as a place where people are running amok and the work isn't seen as the first priority by the employees. That can be demoralizing to the rest of the staff who are interested in having impact and can affect recruiting if potential recruits think the company is a big hot mess.