> The truth is, many Google software engineers are unhappy with the political choices that Google are making.

This defense will be relatively easy for Google's leadership to counter. To the extent that it's used, the leadership will be able to say that the unionization effort isn't about working conditions. Instead, it's about political differences (and political differences that are distinct from what almost anyone thinks of as "working conditions").

I could be wrong, but "Google SWEs are unhappy with the leadership's political choices" doesn't sound like a winning rhetorical strategy.

When I was at Google, I'd have been very tempted to join this union, if it was actually focused on improving compensation, bringing more objectivity to perf and promo, and workplace issues. But this new one seems primarily focused on... whinging about Timnit. Even that would be a big positive, if they were focused on getting protections for workplace freedom of speech for all workers and a structured dismissal process, but for some reason I'm skeptical that they'd be standing up for Damore.

Unions are inherently political organizations, and so are corporations. A winning rhetorical strategy is saying that you oppose your employer's blatantly self-serving political actions.

That fantasy depends entirely on the unionization having no blow-backs. A union that has to approve all business decisions going forward could very easily accelerate Google’s loss of relevancy and eliminate or reverse Google’s stock growth (which is the majority of an engineer’s comp).

On the flip side, this nightmare scenario is also currently a fantasy in an industry that has had minimal union activity, in a country where union power has been slipping for decades. This is slippery slope catastrophizing.

Or it could do the opposite by making better decisions. I don't see why your version is more likely than the opposite.

Well there has never been an example of a democratically run company that makes good decisions so far.

It’s a classic principal agent problem. You want to take the voting power away from those with the financial stake and expect the people without a financial mistake to make good business decisions.

What is your standard for "good decisions"? Is your standard maximum profit and growth? In that case, sure. Is your standard general customer and employee satisfaction, along with stability? In that case, no.

I'd say the second criteria is infinitely more useful, and empirically it works. The most stable bank in North America is democratically run by both customers and employees, I'm a very happy customer, and I know of many happy employees.

No problem with protecting what you earn, I just don't like you doing it through cartels.