[woodruffw]

> Bad companies can't be fixed by internal activism

Maybe I'm misunderstanding that you're saying, but wouldn't this imply that unionisation from within ought to necessarily always fail? It's a pretty textbook example of activism, and is generally pointed to as one of the great strengths of the American midcentury.

[wmf]

I updated my comment to clarify. If a company has a neutral mission (like selling cars or something) but treats workers poorly then activism can fix internal issues. If a company's fundamental goal is harmful (tobacco, war, etc.) then I don't think unions can fix that.

[woodruffw]

I think I understand, but to bring the point home: it's not clear to me that selling cars is, in fact, neutral: they're environmentally destructive (both to manufacture and over the long tail), contribute to unsustainable housing patterns (suburbanization), and are the lynchpin in some of the US's most callous urban development decisions in the last century[1].

This doesn't make an engineer who works at a car startup a bad person. It's just an admonishment to maybe be a little more cognizant of the bigger picture that we're all a part of.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/04/new-york-sou...

[rsa25519]

When the GP said "internal activism," I don't think they meant unionization in the sense of worker rights. I think they were referring to workers objecting to projects that hurt other people, rather than workers collectively bargaining wages etc.