Unless you think that the company does something so bad that you need to bring more attention to it and can't work there anymore in good conscience. Then, just like these employees, go for it - that's exactly the audience. You have to be prepared for the consequences of course.

Protests don't work if you do them quietly in your corner without affecting anyone in a meaningful way.

A memo to your colleagues on why your conscience requires you to quit.

Personal letters explaining what you gave up, financially and otherwise, because of your beliefs.

These are powerful, powerful things.

“Taking over” an office is not powerful. In fact this entire narrative has been constructed by Google, with almost personal testimony from those involved.

It was easy to silence them because they never really spoke up.

Taking over could be powerful if well prepared. These couragous activists probably lacked experience in efficient protest modes and why they work

A corporate office is not like an administration building at a soft-handed university. There's no way you are going to successfully take over an office for any real amount of time unless you are willing to use real violence and potentially get into some kind of hostage situation.

The police will be called, there will be more of them than of you, and they will remove you.

Protest is a show. You don't need to take over for days, you just need the protest to have maximum reach which in our time could happen in minutes. Obvious things they should have done : Inform their colleagues beforehand, so they be in the know, plan around it, and why not participate in some form. Inform journalists and smuggle them into the buildings. Police intervention is planned for and should be a major part of the show.

Journalists know better than to get involved in something like that. They would be asked to leave immediately (it's super easy to notice people standing around filming what's going on who aren't wearing employee badges), and then they would of course leave immediately as they aren't willing to catch a trespass charge just for one page 17 news article.

depends on which journalist you chose

I can guarantee you this made more people adverse to the cause than for it. They did everything wrong, and many of the people who might have had a chance at trying to change things are out of Google and will not be able to do anything.

It's also likely that people who saw this might now not want to be involved at all for fear of losing their job.

This action likely did nothing but make it less likely that anything will change, and been the absolute worst way to attempt to persuade people.

People afraid for their job would be very unlikely to make noise anyway. It's a nice idea about changing things from within a system, but... you have to believe that's possible in the first place. There will be people that do it too, but we won't see articles written about them.

It made me Google what they were protesting. So it brought some attention. Not enough attention that I won't have forgotten by tomorrow though.

I would argue that in such a case you should resign and then protest after you resign.

It is immoral to both take money from someone and actively work against them. You should chose one.

When you protest after you resign, you're just a random person without access to the decision-maker's office. Protesting after quitting, away from the office/co-workers would bring about as much attention as me protesting in my home right now.

And let's be serious - they knew they'd be fired. (Or extremely naive)

According to the article, this was effectively a resignation from at least one employee who was quoted as saying he felt wrong to receive a paycheck with money earned from immoral behavior.

You'd have a good point in the case of people working for Bob Everyman, the local grocery store owner.

It's less clear when the "someone" is a nebulous globe spanning transnational with multitudes of projects.

It's moral to work on software that assists humanity while protesting that which does not.

With companies that large your point is akin to claiming it to be immoral to be a citizen of the US while protesting the war in Vietnam.

Such childish actions are derisive.

I think that was supposed to be derisive. When you say "you're helping murder people, we expect change", that's in itself derisive. What specifically is your non-childish idea for protesting your employer taking money to indirectly help murder people?

> Your coworkers aren’t your audience.

I'm not about to protest at work, but I respect protestors for fighting for what they believe in. But I agree, coworkers aren't usually your audience, and usually have no power. To quote the article:

> Protesters in Sunnyvale sat in [Google Cloud CEO's] office for more than nine hours until their arrests, writing demands on [his] whiteboard and wearing shirts that read “Googler against genocide.”

I think this is about as respectful as you can be in a protest, especially at work. Directly disrupt the actual person who's responsible for making a decision. Non violently, and out of the way of rank-and-file employees who have no power and are just trying to do their job.

The International Court of Justice found that the employer's client in this case is plausibly conducting acts of genocide (https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...).

Is there anything an employer could do or be involved in that, in your mind, justifies civil disobedience in the work place, or is there just no limiting principle here?

You could wait for the final icj decision on the case.

From what i understand a preliminary "plausible" ruling by the ICJ requires very little evidence. Its similar to the amount of evidence needed for a search warrant in a normal case - you need some, but much less then you need for an actual conviction. There is still a very good chance that Israel will win the case overall notwithstanding the "plausible" ruling.

> You could wait for the final icj decision on the case.

And Google could freeze all work for and collaboration with the party plausibly accused of acts of genocide until the decision comes in. But they won't, and their employees are only following their lead.

It also doesn't seem reasonable to tell someone they need to wait until a potential genocide, and what might be their role in it, is done and over before they have the social okay to start engaging in political speech.

> Its similar to the amount of evidence needed for a search warrant in a normal case - you need some, but much less then you need for an actual conviction.

No, it isn't. The ICJ proceedings were adversarial, and the process of obtaining a search warrant is not.

Israel's government is directly and intentionally killing an maiming about 250 children daily for 190 or so days in a row 15-20 thousands of them dead right now, and 10s of thousands more wounded. And this is not even the first genocide Israel was involved in or helped carry out. They have quite a legacy in south america, where they were supporting now (self-)recognized genocide of Maya (https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/10/guatemala-un...).

Yes, Google could wait for "final" decision, like these companies always wait for final decisions when some of their employees rape or assualt someone (or is accused of such), or when their employees kill 10 children on camera, or take a buldozer and crush entire families in tents to death. They'd surely wait until final decision of the court to fire them, and stop doing business with them. Their all about fairness, and respecting the presumption of innocence. :D

It's all about the money, who cares how many people they help kill. Just like with all the data abuse. It only was somewhat limited when there was threat to Google from some governments. Quiting some employees is < $ than quiting a billion dolar contract. That's all there's to it, quite likely.

Pretty sure there are billions to be made between now and some 20-30 years later when the genocide may be recognized by some international court.

I commend these people for deciding to get quited by Google in the manner they did. They made the point publicly, instead of just silently quiting.

A plausible ruling requires a significant amount of evidence - enough to convince the court that the case could lead to a conviction and is worth spending several years on.

At the very least, any country that is "plausibly" committing genocide is engaged in some truly heinous actions, even if they don't amount to the legal definition of genocide.

I don’t see a point where “taking over an office” convinces me of anything.

It’s not like they were sharing copies of the ICJ decision.

We're all talking about it here, which was probably their goal. I wasn't previously aware of the fact that Google is helping the IDF target Palestinians.

Those 28 workers will get compensated probably 1-2mils each as California dont take retaliation easily. American companies are required to allow social activitism. That Google security chief will be fired or nicely put "let go" a couple years down the road. Yeah I dont agree with those workers antic. But unfortunately they will win and Google will win too (more contracts). Not so for that security chief guy unfortunately. He should learn from how Microsoft and Apple did it. Plus Google staffs worldwide will be subjected to retaliation by "freedom fighters". These already happened at least 20 times in the last 15 years just that news not reporting.

I don't know exactly where to begin here... Well, no. American companies are not required to allow social activism - fortunately. Not even in California!

In fact, there are no freedom of expression protections within private businesses outside a few protected categories such as work safety.

The confusion is some companies market themselves as fun and socially responsible and do no evil . That confuses people while if you work for a serous do what your told top down accounting firm no one is going to ask if they should be working with a eco unfriendly company