
Most of the Google Walkout Organizers Have Left the Company - ChuckMcM
https://www.wired.com/story/most-google-walkout-organizers-left-company/
======
ChuckMcM
I have said it before that your best option when you discover the company you
work for no longer (or perhaps never did) shares your values about what is
right and what is wrong, you only have two choices; work from within to see if
the rank and file the same way and try to change it before you get fired, or
leave on your terms.

I found this comment in the story kind of ironic, _“I’m certain many in
leadership—who learned what Google was and why it was great over a decade
ago—don’t truly understand the direction in which Google is growing. Nor are
they incentivized to.”_

I don't know Meredith so I don't know how she reasoned to this statement but
my experience was that many in Google's leadership understand _exactly_ which
direction Google is growing in and they _like it that way._ I had to poke and
prod to get around the way things were presented to get to the actual reasons,
and those reasons and actions are remarkably consistent.

~~~
RepAgent
I'm assume that you say 'only two options' as a rhetorical device to deny the
validity of third option. It's different thing to say that worker activism is
not proper than saying that it's not effective. I think your opinion is former
but you try to argue the latter.

Creating larger bargaining unit from current employers is more effective than
working as an individual. As these big tech companies have increasing number
of workers who do not fear losing their job, it will create political power
that is most effectively used collectively withing companies. This can work as
traditional unions or just plain political activist groups.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Actually I was subsuming the option of unionizing into the choice of 'stay
there and see how many people agree with you before you get fired.'

In my experience at Google it was clear that in Mountain View there was a
program of 'managing out of the company' people who created problems. The
sorts of problems they sought to minimize were disagreement or discussion that
made actionable criticisms of management decisions.

As much as I dislike the actions of James Damore, his case, if it proceeds[1],
has the potential to put a lot of this activity on the part of leadership into
the public record. I personally think they will figure out what it will cost
to buy his silence and make the case go away which won't serve the interests
of the current employees.

[1] [https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/07/google-
discrimination...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/07/google-
discrimination-case-first-brought-by-james-damore-can-proceed/)

~~~
RepAgent
As a outsider I have never understood how the Google culture can work for long
term.

It looks like there are platforms where informal power is gained or lost
without responsibility. People who are active or vocal or member in informal
groups and cliques may get into positions where they can influence corporate
decision making or HR policy. Yet they are not responsible or chosen by their
peers to represent them.

Damore case is good example. Allowing random individual to soapbox is not the
right way to implement workplace democracy or openness in my opinion. If you
want to involve workers in workplace democracy, you better have a organization
for it where issues can be separated from people.

