[erklik]

> it's great that you're in a position to walk to if you don't like your employment situation

From a person who doesn't work in Google, or Big Tech, or even in SV. This is one of the reasons why these attempts at unionization from Google employees tend to annoy me slightly.

These are the few people in the world that would get hundreds of job offers in seconds. Yet instead of moving out if they don't agree with Google's projects, they would influence the projects and maybe affect the future of the company rather than give up their place for the hundreds like me who would gladly work on any defence-related project.

These are examples of true privilege.

[ProofByAccident]

I have two responses to this.

1. > These are the few people in the world that would get hundreds of job offers in seconds.

AWU is wall-to-wall, so not only are the cushy FTEs represented, but also all the less cushy contract workers, part-timers, etc (of which Google employs many!)

2. > Yet instead of moving out if they don't agree with Google's projects, they would influence the projects and maybe affect the future of the company

Isn't that their right? Shouldn't the people doing the work of the company get a say in that company's future? The "if you don't like it leave" attitude is so strange to me. What if they like their co-workers and parts of Google, and want to use their (supposedly) meritocratically-won power to exercise control over the things that are close to them? That hardly seems like privilege to me.

[erklik]

> Isn't that their right?

That's a great question. I don't know if it is. Unless they are shareholders of the company (granted, many FTEs are shareholders), what is it that gives them the right to influence a company based on their own personal values?

> Shouldn't the people doing the work of the company get a say in that company's future?

I mean if the outlook is for the company to continue to make profits. Sure. However, here, the profits are trumped by politics, and personal values. Why do the personal values of some employees get to decide/influence the future of a company?

> What if they like their co-workers and parts of Google, and want to use their (supposedly) meritocratically-won power to exercise control over the things that are close to them? That hardly seems like privilege to me.

It's called compromise. I have stayed in jobs where I wasn't paid enough but my manager was pretty awesome. I compromised.

Same for these employees. The "take-it-or-leave-it" attitude stems from the fact that the "contract" implies a give and take relationship. The power granted to the employee is only if that employee continues to provide value. If they stop providing that value i.e. provide their skills and knowledge to work on projects that benefit the revenue of the company, then that power is gone.

It seems to me that the personal values at play here are redefining what people seem to think of this. Let's pretend that the personal values were something else. Let's say that I, an employee of Acme Company, refuse to work on any work that is not FOSS yet also want to continue to be paid by the company. That sort of thing would usually not be defensible. I believe that most people would side towards the employer in that scenario.

Why is that essentially the same situation i.e. Employee refuses to work on projects based on "personal values" is somehow acceptable?