> "If Google was able to fire workers for being evil"

Are you treating that as fact?

Obviously I haven't looked at the paperwork for every fired employee (and probably no one will ever get to), but I think they have some other pretext. "<employee> was fired for being evil" is not a phrase you'll ever find.

It's right there in their code of conduct[1] that employees can be fired not just for being evil, but for "seeing something that [they] think isn't right" and not speaking up.

> Failure of a member of our extended workforce or other covered service provider to follow the Code can result in termination of their relationship with Google.

> don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!

[1] https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/

So you're talking about what could happen, legally. I was actually there (were you?) and I'm talking about what has happened.

That's a good point. You see phrases such as "consent shall not be unreasonably withheld" in contracts. It's common in leases, where you can sublet with the consent of the landlord. Court decisions in this area are not consistent.

Are you saying I hae a case against my company because they are incompetent. I would be fired for incompetence, so I should be able to sue my employer for the vauge crime of being incompetent for say ... $100million?

> If Google was able to fire workers for being evil, I think these employees have a case for the reverse as well.

The reverse here is that the employees are allowed to quit. Google isn't trying to sue any employees for "being evil".

That isn't the reverse at all.

Why not?