"Mandate" means something very different when performed by a private employer than by a government entity. In the former case it means something like "make continued employment conditional upon." Google employees are perfectly free to decide they're no longer satisfied with the conditions of their employment and find new jobs elsewhere instead.

Edited to add: In terms of whether Google "should" do so, I assume they've thought through the trade-off of increased attrition vs. reduced risk of COVID outbreaks (among other factors) and decided that allowing unvaccinated people to either go back to the office or work remotely would be a net negative for the company.

Do you really believe Google is ready to lose at least 20% of their staff? That would be a horrible decision especially in the market we are currently in. These people will easily find jobs elsewhere.

I doubt Google will lose anywhere close to 20% of its staff, and I assume Google doubts that too. I expect the rest of FAANG+ will follow suit, and there won't be that many jobs where you can earn a FAANG-level salary without being vaccinated (either because they're fully remote or otherwise). When push comes to shove I don't think that many people will be willing to take six-figure pay cuts.

I thought Google was better than this, guess not.

If Google believes their employees are more productive in the office, why shouldn't they do everything in their power to get the workforce back into the office?

Productivity is (hopefully) not the only metric — employee happiness is important too.

And survival.

Thus the vaccination requirement.

I don't agree with Google on returning to the office (at all, irrespective of COVID), but frankly at this point, almost anything that improves vaccine rates is fine with me. The sooner we're all vaccinated, the sooner we can return to normal life.

That may not be how things play out. Vaccination may facilitate immune escape[1]

"Given that therapeutics (vaccines and antibody-based therapies) target mainly the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the selection pressures that favour the emergence of new variants carrying immune escape mutations generated in chronic infections24,25,26 will be similar to those selecting for mutations that allow reinfections within the wider population27,28,29. Therefore, sequencing of viruses associated with prolonged infections will provide useful information on mutations that could contribute to increased transmissibility or escape from vaccine-mediated immunity."

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00573-0

Wouldn't that more likely apply in the case where we have significant vaccination rates, but NOT yet at the level of herd immunity? IE, if we're vaccinated to the point of herd immunity, this ceases to be a problem? To be otherwise would tend to imply smallpox and other vaccines should already have evolved, no?

I think you mean "smallpox and other viruses should already have evolved."

The difference is that the smallpox vaccine prevented infection of the vaccinated. That's not the case for existing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. https://www.verywellhealth.com/covid-19-vaccines-and-sterili... gives an approachable overview of the difference.

Smallpox was eradicated. The likelihood of the same happening to SARS-CoV-2 is lower. At least, it would be the first example of a respiratory infection being eliminated. Influenza hasn't been eradicated and it does continue to evolve.

More broadly, the idea of "immune escape" is hardly something I can lay claim to. You can read about it in existing literature.

Only if you think the "productivity" metric trumps everything else.

Google has set up a bunch of alternative options ranging from permanent remote work to temporary extensions of up to a year. If people don't feel comfortable coming back on the date, it isn't hard to stay at home longer.

> But if they do so, I don't think they should force people into the office.

They could just fire them otherwise?