Shouldn't employees have the right to collectively strike to get better conditions at work? There's a lot more at stake here than "drama for the company".

Absolutely, employees should have the right to get better conditions at work. The problem is that there are massive disagreements in this case whether e.g. quota-based diversity hiring, and penalising workers for mere accusations of harassment, rather than substantial, and credible proof of harassment, are better work conditions, or the opposite thereof.

> Shouldn't employees have the right to collectively strike to get better conditions at work? There's a lot more at stake here than "drama for the company".

Doesn't the employer have the right to fire them for any reason in any "at will job"?

I dont think that "at will" exists in all countries - e.g. in Europe I have been told by managers I've had in various employments that it is almost impossible to fire someone in Europe without either some serious misconduct (e.g. sexual harassment), or without first going through a lot of steps to try and not-fire the employee (e.g. performance improvement plans).

I am not sure if that is true or not or if it applies to google employees, but I feel like there is a ring of truth in it.

In Germany sexual harassment earns you at least an adhortatory letter (the first step to a dismissal), and depending on the severity the options go up to an instant dismissal like in US at will states.

While it's harder to get fired here, it is by no means impossible. The law just provides what's basically a three strike system (one to two adhortatory letters for the same reason, then the third time the employee can be dismissed) to give the employee a chance to change behaviour.

That is true (no at will employment in at least most if not all of Europe, thankfully). And of course it applies to Google employees in the respective countries because it is the law.

They can be fired for any lawful reason. It would be unlawful to fire employees for striking - with some exceptions.

Striking employees can be replaced in order to get the work done, but that doesn't make sense for a one-day walkout.

Well, that's a way of being remembered forever while also having other employees quit in solidarity.

(Edit into this dying thread: reports of the walkout in Google Dublin: https://twitter.com/evelyn_orourke/status/105795687016449228... )

Not to mention users and customers.

Some people really are unwilling to see the value of self-sacrifice for the greater good.

Why is being in line your first argument? I can understand somewhat if you're used to that in a country that does not respect humans as individuals, but nobody with a grasp of 1st world liberty should agree with it. You treat people as you wish to be treated. If those people are wrong, say good reasons why, but when you jump to an argument similiar to fascism it sounds like you're projecting your issues.

I'm pretty sure firing employees because they are involved in a "concerted activity" to improve their working conditions violates US law.

It would be legal to "replace" them with new employees, but that's not practical (or warranted) for a one-day walkout.

They'd be firing people for exercising their democratic right to protest and displaying solidarity for coworkers past, present and future.

Google aren't exactly a bastion of humanistic values, but I'm sure they'd be loath to dispose of a significant part of their workforce while looking fascistic and authoritarian in the process.