I'd be much more interested in tackling things like non-competes, employee ownership of side projects, better vesting schedules, better direction for the company, salaries, revisiting how many H1B visas there are, etc.

I want specific objectives that make life better for employees including me (although I don't work at Google, I mean hypothetically, if I did). I don't want generic platitudes.

How does one define "inclusive and fair". Who decides what is inclusive? The Union? I don't want to apply the fallacy of inclusion, but if someone wears a crucifix and that makes an atheist feel excluded, who is right? I know "the Union will decide" but tyranny of the majority is a real thing. See the ban on burkas/hijabs in many "inclusive" countries.

Also, if you are appealing to the public, saying that the working conditions at Google, where you are paid near the top 1% of the all workers and have free food etc, "working conditions" might not be the right term.

We have the freedom to decline to work on projects that don’t align with our values

When do you declare your values? Is it always a moving target? To be a conscientious objector in the United States, there needs to be a demonstrable history of your objection. You can't get drafted and then suddenly find religion. How do you stop the inevitable abuse of this exclusion?

Well, we're talking about working on software projects here. I work in defense and would have no qualms about the whole Project Maven thing. But if all they want is the freedom to decline to work on it, that seems pretty reasonable to me. They didn't sign up for that stuff, and Google isn't primarily a defense company.

The draft is (in theory) an emergency measure for the good of the nation. Just like the government can force you to pay taxes, they can force you to fight in the military. That's certainly not a power a private corporation should have.

I find this sentiment quite weird honestly. The "contract" between the employee and the employer is that the employee does what the employer asks of them, and in return gets paid for his work. If these employees do not desire to work on projects that Google is getting, then they should terminate the contract and find work elsewhere.

So, Actually. That's exactly what they signed up for.

It is bonkers to me that a employee does not work on what the employee wants to work on, within a company, and yet also expects the employer to keep paying them.

This honestly sounds like so much privilege. These workers are top 1% of the world, it sounds like "whining" when you are not in their position.

I have the power to tell my boss "I'm not going to work on that", and they're free to keep paying me to do something else instead. It's the same power I use to negotiate my pay and benefits, and the entire reason I developed this skillset and work in this industry.

Using that power to form a union and wield it collectively is one aspect of the right to freely associate. If Alphabet workers want to use that collective power to negotiate a legal contract protecting their job if they refuse to work on a project, that's their right.

But I am guessing they're not free to fire you, right? So, it's not really "take-it-or-leave-it" but more "take-it-or-choose-something-else". There's not leaving involved.

> If Alphabet workers want to use that collective power to negotiate a legal contract protecting their job if they refuse to work on a project, that's their right.

This is what confuses me, and maybe you can help me understand.

1. Employee and Employer have a contract where Employee will work on what Employer wants and get paid in return.

2. Employee does not want to work on what Employer wants, yet wants to be paid i.e. wants the employer to honor their part of the contract while wanting to renege on their part.

Let's use another example.

Would one be supportive of employees wanting to only work FOSS while at Alphabet refusing to work on anything else, and still "protect their job" i.e. not be fired?

Ah, okay. So if your current employer asked you and your coworkers to do something that was legal but highly unethical, you and every one of your coworkers would be financially secure enough to quit at the drop of a hat? Must be nice.

If i worked at Google, where SWE's are earning above 120K at a graduate level. I would hope so. I don't earn that sort of money, nor have that level of a safety net, so therefore, I must compromise and continue to work.

A union is a democratically run organization so the answer is the membership.

Part of this is from how outside leadership has been brought in that is accidentally trampling over unwritten rules and part of this is conflicts in the different interpretations the increasing number of employees have of these unwritten rules.

I'll grant that there is support and perhaps increasing sentiment. I am not sure that there is consensus that those issues are paramount. I'm also not sure it's even enough for overwhelming majorities are sufficient to enact rules. There is such a thing as a democratic tyranny. But some sort of bill of rights might be interesting, depending.

The top two seem fine, but Google is one of the best places to work at on the planet. But I don't mind it being improved.

The fourth one is really just a compensation package. I don't agree that every job should have the same compensation/benefits.

The third one is what I oppose. If you don't want to work on a project, then don't. I don't want to work in a trash dump (oh the pay is great too), so I don't.

I'm also certain that the fourth one will be weaponized and use for deplatforming people.