I've seen harassment campaigns (which ended in a lawsuit against the chief harasser) over association with someone who associates with a certain group. So even if you're a liberal you can get in trouble for associating with the wrong people or speaking at the wrong conference or promoting the wrong project.

Yeah, the argument that this will primarily target conservatives is probably incorrect; the baseline population of conservatives at Google is probably dwarfed by the population of mainstream progressives who would fail in some way, shape, or form to abide by proper woke etiquette and thus create an unsafe environment.

If you're remotely alarmed by what happened to James Damore, then you should be alarmed by a union that organizes itself around these sorts of values.

There's a certain kind of personality who needs to be a hero fighting against the enemy. It exists on both sides of the political spectrum. Both liberals and conservatives hate it when they see it on the opposite side but support it on their own side. When this sort of person lacks a clear enemy they will make one up. Some 10% of the group will always and must always be the enemy. Hope you don't end up unlucky enough to fall into that group.

The language of these organizers triggers too many warnings in my head around being that kind of personality. No matter which side of the political spectrum they are on I try to not support these personalities.

Now I'm not super into US politics, partly because it's so polarized today, but which one of these values are against conservative ideals? Seems to be pretty basic human decency, like everyone deserves a voice, welcoming environment, decisions are made democratically and more. Are those really against conservative ideas?

Edit: My comment seems to have spawned replies to unrelated subjects so I'll repeat the question hopefully a bit more clear: What of the values proposed so far in the "Google Union", goes against modern conservative values in the US today?

In practice, as we've seen numerous times with CoC squabbles, being known to harbor certain political attitudes that are well within the American Overton window will create allegations that you're make people feel unsafe.

For example, if one posts "All Lives Matter" on social media they could easily fall afoul of a "welcoming environment" provision.

What is CoC in this context? Code of conduct?

Yes, you are correct.

> My comment seems to have spawned replies to unrelated subjects

You have exactly four replies and all but one of them answers your question directly, politely and respectfully.

Their second listed value is

> Social and economic justice are paramount to achieving just outcomes. We will prioritize the needs of the worst off. Neutrality never helps the victim.

Social justice is a progressive view normally running counter to the individual responsibly outlook favored by conservatives. Prioritizing the needs of the worst off could be supported by conservatism but they will probably define "worst" in a way conservatives find objectionable. As for "Neutrality never helps the victim" that runs counter to a lot of American conservative thought that rule of law and applying rules neutrally is a massive progress over previously biased systems. The implication of the statement is that they want to remove neutrality in certain circumstances for certain people which goes against the conservative view that all people should be treated equally.

Often "welcoming environments", especially when paired with progressive dogwhistles, really mean an environment that is hostile for those that are not on one end of the political spectrum. The threshold isn't just conservative, even moderate liberals fall afoul of this. For instance, not supporting the defunding of police would get you eviscerated at my company despite the fact that it's a view 75% of Americans share: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/07/09/majority-of-...

I really love the whole kerfuffle about the police because it's doing a great job putting on display that you have "law and order" type jackbooted authoritarians on both sides of the isle.

Democracy in the US is seen by some people as the rule of the majority, therefore infringes personal rights and freedom.

Prioritizing the environment? Straight from the radical liberal left playbook. It means allowing my children die of hunger because I can’t find a job so a dolphin survives.

> Prioritizing the environment? Straight from the radical liberal left playbook. It means allowing my children die of hunger because I can’t find a job so a dolphin survives.

So if I understand what you're saying as a reply to my question, you mean that having "We prioritize society and the environment instead of maximizing profits at all costs" as a explicit value for the Google workplace, means that you'll end up without food for your child?

Not sure when/how dolphins became Google's business, but I might have missed something recently as I don't follow their every move.

Heh, sorry. Being sarcastic. You’re going into the right direction. A lot of people believe to save the environment (or fight global warming) the economy has to suffer, therefore I will lose my job, won’t be able to put food on the table, and all of that so cute animals can survive.

I was super sarcastic because it’s not a view I share, but pretty common in the US. Heck, it’s similar to the coronavirus situation right now, we can’t stop the economy just to save people who are about to die anyway.

I think in general, there have been some examples where the the environment has been prioritized of over people in a way that is hard to unsee. This can make some people very suspicious of such taglines and seeding the interpretation of the balance to others.

An eye opener for me is how water policy is impacting small farmers in the eastern part of California. Imagine spending 40 years building a business, and then being told that starting in 2021 you will have to pay 1M$ in fees to continue pumping water that you have legal rights to using your own infrastructure. It is literally taking peoples livelihoods without any compensation and eminent domain.