This is in fact the quickest way to ensure that this behavior immediately stops
Your analysis seems to assume that there's some fixed percentage of employees who think some action from their employer is bad, and if that percentage is high enough, then all those employees could quit, which would either somehow signal to the employer that their action was bad or would damage the company so much that they would need to change their actions.
I think that's wishful thinking, and of course the percentage of employees with a complaint is not fixed and can be directly increased by internal efforts to organize. That applies not just to internal awareness, but also public awareness: note that we're only having discussions about cases where employees attempted to organize other employees.
If a company knows you will return to work no matter how much you complain, they are not going to take you seriously. (This was the Walkout's mistake.) And if, as an individual, you make too much noise, you'll just get fired. (See numerous individual examples.) Decisive collective action works, and that's what unions figured out a long time ago.
More recently McDonalds workers went on a mass strike in the UK for a living wage, and got a pay rise:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mcdonalds-w...
One of Google's biggest assets is their huge army of talented techies. I'd go so far as to say losing that would be an existential threat to the business.
Techies make a lot of money compared to other professions because we genuinely produce a disproportionate amount of value, but that doesn't imply we're in a seller's market.
One way you can tell that there's no dearth of labor is that most companies round an "unsure" in the interview process to "no," not "yes."
I sugggest you ask a non-tech friend about their experience getting a new job: how many applications they've sent out, how many responses they've received and how many interviews they've actually been to. Then compare that to a software dev's hit rates.
I submit to you that a halfway decent software dev will have a hard time being unemployed: they might not get hired by FAANG and they might have to code in $LANGUAGE_I_HATE, but they'll be able to get a job at a reasonable salary.
Also, consider the fact that there's been a large number of businesses focused on recruitment specifically in the tech area. That's because everyone wants to hire devs and they're willing to pay recruiters to channel the funnel their way.
Few other industries have that luxury.
Somebody who's thought more and more clearly about this could write something better about it, but I felt like pointing out what I think is overlooked.
When say, the teachers go on strike in Chicago, it's not that it's impossible to hire new teachers, it's that someone in the meantime of negotiation has to watch over (and ideally educate) all of the kids that those teachers are responsible for teaching.
Wherever you work, try to imagine a random 1 out of every 5 employees missing one day. How likely are you (and everyone else still there) likely to run into problems conducting your general work. And imagine that that is going to continue until your company manages to interview, vet, hire, onboard, and train all of those people back.
...Or, the corporation could just capitulate to demands. Collective action is incredibly powerful.
Most (white collar) employees are not as fungible as people assume, first of all. Two "Senior Back-end Developers" might have such different work experience that one would ramp up on a project in 5 days, and the other would take a couple of weeks.
Second, all turnover is expensive. For a large company like Google, turnover of 100 people could easily cost millions.
Unfortunately, unless those people worked on ads, Google's investors (and therefore C-suite) probably wouldn't miss them much.
If you do not have that critical mass, and resignation is the only moral choice, then all you achieve is eliminating that voice from the inside and eliminate any inside power to influence.
It's great when someone who quits has the resources to also try to bring some attention to the reasons why.
I think the political power can only be regained by pooling your labor with your peers.
https://mobile.twitter.com/codinghorror/status/1172279395035...
I wish there was another way, but I can't really think of one that's within our control... Unions are certainly not above corruption either. I see Republicans / Democrats as two opposing unions; instead of making rational decisions on each issue independently everything gets encoded into a binary choice. Red or blue and all the good / bad that comes with either choice.
The real solution is smaller companies. Local businesses that you can simply stop using / move away from. That seems like a pipe dream though; it's more convenient to buy your internet from Comcast and support a monopoly than start your own ISP - even if you do and it gains traction, Comcast will come knocking and you'll take the money and retire.
I think its likely hard to hire smart people who don't rock the boat; and thus it takes a long time to hire. It's of course possible (and reasonably likely) that there are only a handful of people that can do the work, but I dunno... with the kind of money that Google has you just open a school and start grooming people specifically for the roles that you have open. Build a pipeline of qualified workers, don't wait for them to come to you.
Whenever Homer gives out advice the odds are its bad advice.
This sounds terrible. You're not increasing worker power as a whole you're just increasing the power of workers with similar political agendas. If successful, the unaligned workers don't even get the material benefit of a raise or added employee benefits like they would from a real union. The unaligned are basically just expected to roll with whatever mayhem the preachy workers cause.
Holocaust would not happen. Modernity and the Holocaust by Z. Bauman should be obligatory read for corporate workers.
You may "voice your concerns" all you like, but while you're an employee, it is your duty to ACT in accordance with the directions you're given, and in the absence of explicit direction, in the interests of the company.
If you're an employee of a company you are contractually obligated to fulfill the terms of your contract, but there is no legal -- or if you prefer, LEGAL -- requirement for you to do so. You may be reprimanded or even fired for spending too much time on Hacker News at the office, but you are not breaking any law by doing so. More to the point in this case, you are absolutely not breaking any law by telling your employer that you don't agree with their decisions, or even by trying to organize fellow employees to put pressure on management to change their behavior. If your employer fires you because of your speaking out or organizing, in fact, the law may very well be on your side, not theirs.
If you are flexible enough about what "maximizing shareholder value" means, then it's not an endorsement of any behavior anyone disapproves of. You could say the real issue is just that people do bad stuff and say that it is maximizing value.
Corporations often say they have to do stuff to maximize shareholder value, but they also often say they have to act in the worst possible way permitted by law, because that is the standard the law sets. That is, without referencing shareholder value. Maybe it's all just nonsense excuses by people who do bad stuff?
Bondholders (as well as employees and others) come before shareholders in bankruptcy, so it seems like in a very concrete way, maximizing shareholder value is not a feature of it and never has been.
There are certainly some economists who might argue that indeed it's become nonsense excuses, including The Economist, which wrote in 2016 that shareholder value theory had become "a license for bad conduct, including skimping on investment, exorbitant pay, high leverage, silly takeovers, accounting shenanigans and a craze for share buy-backs."
(Also, apparently I had the year wrong -- Friedman wrote in 1970, not 1975.)
I think whether that is a sufficient qualification depends on whether you are trying to break down or eliminate most of the "rules of the game" or instead make them better.
Lots of ideas make sense by themselves and then become toxic when combined with others.
This is a myth. The only time this applies is if there's an actual written contract of fiduciary duty. Running a company or having investors does not magically enact some federal law.
I think utilizing one's power as a worker and aligning other workers to increase workers' power is far from hypocritical. It's a great way (perhaps the only reliable way) to hold companies accountable for their actions and improve companies' treatment of workers and society.