This, too, has been my thinking.

That said, having worked at Google there are many folks who were there prior to this shift (and unwittingly assisted by doing nothing previously). I don't blame them for trying to correct course and actually hope they can do so while remaining at a workplace they have spent so much time and effort developing and integrating within.

> btw if I quit on Feb 1, I'm walking away from half a million dollars in stock. This has some serious monetary consequences for me.

https://twitter.com/lizthegrey/status/1067469950594486272

I’m not saying anyone should walk away from money. But the same people who want Google to walk away from the world’s largest country aren’t willing to walk away from thier stock but expect Google executives to make financial choices for moral reason.

I don't think walking away from all your stock vs. a company walking away from a deal that would account for a small fraction of its profits is a fair comparison.

A more fair comparison would be asking if employees would be willing to have their stock decrease in value 10% in exchange for their company being more moral. I expect many employees would take such an exchange, although not all.

But those employees who _did not_ care about morality also would have their stock decrease by 10% in value due to no fault of their own. Therefore, it's only ethically correct for those who want to take the stance to also accept a decrease in stock compared to those who didnt.

And if the stock rebounds? Are they then going to forego the rebound?

Or is it "all privilege, no responsibility"?

They can also quit now or yesterday. Why Feb 1? Also most of these folks will get another job that will provide a compensation that largely makes up for unvested stock they haven't got yet. They aren't really walking away from anything, and this seems like a virtue-signaling pat on one's own back.

It's one thing to work at a company with questionable business practices, even if they could hypothetically lead to a Black Mirror future.

It's another thing to work at a company which has decided to aid a government on the other side of the world that's forcibly relocating a million religious minorities to re-education camps.

(Cue the China apologists!)

It is far more effective for them to organize for change than for individuals to quit. Even if they reach the conclusion that quitting is the only option, if it's not organized, it will achieve nothing. The power an individual has is absolutely insignificant compared to the power of a company.

To be honest, Google might even prefer they quit. They could then just be sure to hire more amenable people in the future.

Interesting, so do you suggest that the company's morally correct employees leave, and cause a moral evaporative cooling at the company?

If anything, you should be urging your moral friends and coworkers to go to Google.

I’m not saying they should leave or stay. But, protestors in the 60s were willing to get kicked, beaten, arrested, etc for their moral beliefs. They were willing to make real sacrifices. On the other hand, Google employees had the “courage” to sign a letter.

What protesters were willing to do in the 60s or in 2018 is orthogonal to ensuring that Google maintains a workforce of "moral" people.

Suggestions that those who think that Google is going down a dark path should leave will just result in moral evaporative cooling, which leaves everybody off worse.

That sounds like the same excuse that companies and the government used in the 80s when people were trying to get the government to impose sanctions on South Africa over apartheid.

Signing a piece of paper knowing that it is of no personal risk to you is virtue signaling.

Why should that get a company to change? What will be the consequences if they go ahead with thier plan? A more harshly written letter?

Google entering China is morally equivalent to South African apartheid? Okay, I think we have fundamentally different views on what kind of "stand" this warrants.

The clear implication is that these people will quit the company if Google goes forward with Dragonfly.

No, I’m saying that companies used the same excuses and reasoning for doing business with oppressive regimes - that you can make a bigger difference by staying in than leaving.

Collective action by employees can be more effective than a boycott. These Google employees clearly believe there is a chance they can change Google's actions by writing this open letter. Employee activism has changed Google's behavior before, so there is reason to think this strategy might work.

I agree. Sometimes saying people should avoid working for a company, which does some things they don't like and some things they do like, sounds like telling people to leave the US if they don't like the current state of affairs. It may be a valid choice for some people, but it's not the only (or even the most effective) way to work against the company doing the things they don't like.

> And if the employees placed thier [sic] values over profits, why are they still there?

There is probably more than one kind of profit. I think that if you've got a mortgage on a SV condo or house, and made plans for your financial life based on your income without knowing what the company you work for was or would be up to, you may be in a pretty good position to say that it's okay for you to accept a salary as you protest the action or actions of the company. Not to mention, strikes or other means of civil (commercial) disobedience might have more of an impact than simply leaving. By placing the onus on Google to fire you, you have PR and legal leverage (wrongful termination, if your moves are careful (IANAL)) to change the situation, whereas if you leave, you just go quietly into that good night, and the situation is guaranteed to continue. Complicity isn't always a black and white matter.

> I wonder if they are going to refuse their stock based compensation?

Stock-based compensation, I imagine, is on a vesting schedule. The same discussion as above applies, except that some of that compensation represents value that may be notionally "clean," having been earned outside the scope of the bad acts, either temporally or organizationally. It also represents earned compensation. Finally, its refusal would only serve to enrich Google, the ostensible bad actor in this instance.

However, what sickens me most about the OP's drive-by rhetoric is its reflexive turn toward reactionary complacency. It seems to say that those without sin only are allowed to cast the first stone, but really universalizes something like original sin to justify complete complacency. Further, it ignores the power imbalance between employer and employee, and minimizes the bravery of those who are speaking and acting out against injustice. It's despicable.

Have you notice that when it comes to being “brave” and speaking out against moral wrongdoing in Silicon Valley, it’s always the highly compensated white collar workers? You never see factory workers at Amazon for instance protesting about Amazon’s government contracts.

I bet you anything if people at Google who are protesting were really afraid of losing thier jobs, not as many would be protesting.

Amazon factory workers protest over their working conditions. Those who have more secure employment have the ability to protest over more abstract causes. There is nothing new here; many political reformers and revolutionaries have been from middle or upper classes, who possess the financial security and education to opine about high-minded causes. This is Maslow's hierarchy at work here.

"I don't want to do evil things for any amount of money" is clearly not the same thing as "I don't care about money at all."

Someone may thing that the "Long March through the Institutions" is actually a viable strategy. There's enough warm bodies lining up at the recruiters that anyone leaving the company won't affect it in the least, but an insider may have a shot at improvement.

Presumably because Dragonfly hasn't launched yet. They are trying to prevent Google from making the same mistake that Apple and so many others have before it makes that mistake.

Just like the ppl who said if Trump be elected as the president, they will leave USA, but till now, they are still here. I can't understand