I don't know what the demands are -- I would hope they were transparency and accountability going forward. I do agree that a walkout without clear demands is me

I don't know what the demands are -- I would hope they were transparency and accountability going forward. I do agree that a walkout without clear demands is meaningless -- except that it can embarrass senior management and that is sometimes the goal. But beyond embarrassment, what these types of walkouts do is signal to management that discontent is brewing and that employees are willing to fight back and stand-up. And as people are arguing upthread, tech workers have a certain amount of power in deciding where they work. Recruiting is competitive as it is -- it certainly doesn't make it any easier if you have employees walking out en mass because of policies that protected senior executives. Do walkouts work without mass buy-in, no -- not usually. The bad publicity/embarrassment factor could force some corporations to make changes, but just as many won't care. This is why unions are typically successful with threats of work stoppage, and also why the hardest part of unionizing is getting enough employees to sign cards (not to mention fighting against the mistruths management usually puts out about the union itself). I've never walked-out, but in my last job (which was union (WGA-E), we did very seriously consider a work stoppage because of changes that undermined our editorial independence, Even then, the walk-out is the last-resort, but to management's credit, once it was clear that we were willing to walk out, our demand (written indemnity protecting us from personal lawsuits based on things we wrote for the publication -- this is almost always provided by major news organizations but isn't always in writing. The circumstances of our company and the reason why we now had new ownership made it crucial that we get written indemnity and not merely a verbal promise that if sued, the company would pay legal bills if we were named personally) was met.