[pron]

Maybe, but I don't know enough details or background about this situation to debate over its nuances. I'm just criticising the views I see expressed here, that are bizarre even from a capitalistic perspective, that a corporation may do anything legal and will be judged by the market, while employees doing the same -- whether it's smart or not -- is crossing some line.

[coward8675309]

I don't know what general principles people are arguing for here, but the facts at the heart of TFA relate to someone laying down an ultimatum to an employer — "do these things or I'm going to quit" — and the employer replying "sorry to hear that buh bye."

That accepted conditional resignation (as someone mellifluously put it in an earlier HN discussion) is being interpreted by some as a firing. Having read the original letter, it sure sounded like a conditional resignation to me and, as a manager, I would've done my best to get the writer of the letter out the door ASAP.

Keep in mind that as an IC, I once worked for a company that imposed a 10% across the board pay cut without consulting me. I resigned the day it was announced, because my compensation is a term of employment mutually agreed to by my employer and myself, not something imposed upon me. So I've been on both sides of this.

As a general life rule, I go nuclear on people who play hardball with me, whether I am the manager or the managed.

[pron]

> and the employer replying "sorry to hear that buh bye."

... and then other employees raising a stink, perhaps in the hope, misguided or not, that the company will reverse its decision or change its behaviour to help its PR. The employer can use whatever power they think they have, but so can the employees. It's one thing to say that what the employees did wasn't a wise way to achieve their goal, but it's a whole other thing to say that what they did is wrong.

[coward8675309]

You're bringing issues of morality into this when it seems to me that the employees are more focused on self-interest and the accumulation and exercise of raw power while Google is preoccupied with public relations.

[pron]

Both sides use their power to further their goals. To what extent each side's goals align with those of society at large is a separate question, but I find it perplexing that some here think that it's fine for a particularly politically active company to use its power to its advantage as long as it operates within the law, yet when employees do the same, only on a much smaller scale, that's considered as crossing a line.