What's surprising is that now these reprisals are trying to push that back to make Google more like other normal companies and organizational structures.

So far, we've seen quite a bit of the former and very little of the latter. Google's work culture seems to have become politically divisive to a rather surprising extent - if this is what "entitlement" boils down to, surely a more "normal" structure (though I'd settle for just a marginal increase in professionalism, similar to what we see in other "grassroots-led" organizations) can't be all that bad!

The victories are small and recent. The exposure of executive sexism, The push back against military contractors, and the recent pride petitions are modest victories at best, and they've come with a heavy price.

Still, many other major tech companies lack a list at all, despite every indication of facing similar issues.

It's true that it is not normal for employees to be able to speak against their company (or express strong opinions publicly).

Yet Google has always prided itself on being different in having outspoken employees.

This is why it looks bad for Google when it's just business as usual everywhere else.

This has nothing to do with transparency and speaking out against your employer. The issue is not that they have a voice, it’s how they choose to use it.

I feel pretty comfortable with how representative the people I talk to are of Google product security and vulnerability research, for whatever that's worth to you.

This is a silly thread, but for what it’s worth, I have not talked to anyone at Google in a security role about this issue.

I’ll be more blunt. I am highly skeptical that anyone in security there quit their job over the protests. But, I have no reason to doubt that your sample supports the protests.

Do keep in mind though that most people who don’t support them are keenly aware that going near any activism topic, especially at Google, is personal and professional jeopardy. Many people think they can’t even debate these things without running the risk of being on the receiving end of the scorched earth tactics employed by activists. And I’m not even talking about conservatives (of whom I know very few in tech, if any).

It’s not that they think it’s great that Rubin got dumptrucks of money, but the mentality is that if you take any issue with any of the demands or tactics, or the frequency with which they dominate the focus of employees trying to do their work, you’re suddenly a misogynistic transphobic racist enemy of the people.

Then again, a surprisingly large number of Google employees don’t seem to understand that they work for an advertising company.

So it doesn't seem like a "small minority" unless you know a hell of a lot of people.

This part of Google culture is long dead. It used to exist, but it doesn't anymore. There's no transparency anymore, and large factor of ending it was strategic leaks by employees, who hoped to achieved their goals by getting media attention. The entitlement is also gone in the era of cost-cutting by ruthless Ruth. The company you're thinking about entered senescence somewhere around 2012-2013 and died in 2015-2016.

Nobody is entitled to be paid to do what they choose. If you want to do something for your own personal reasons, do it off the clock.

And others are entitled not to pay you to do things they don't want you to do.

Nobody is forced to do things they don't want.

Nobody is forced to pay money to others.

But employment is an agreement between people. The employer agrees to pay, and the other agrees to follow directions of the employer (within the limits of their specific agreement).

If you go to a restaurant and order a burger, and they instead bring you a cake, you'd be well within your rights to refuse payment and complain. The fact that the chef wanted to make a cake is irrelevant, because the chef is being paid by you. (In contrast, if you were to go to friend's house, and he gave you a cake, you could not complain because you're not paying for it.)