I think you missed my point, which is quite tricky to put into words so I may have not done it well. "Google" in that context doesn't mean exclusively its mana

I think you missed my point, which is quite tricky to put into words so I may have not done it well. "Google" in that context doesn't mean exclusively its management, but rather, the whole group of people. When Googlers stage walkouts and so on they don't care much about the specific situations at hand. If it wasn't one thing it'd be another thing. This is clear from scratching the surface of their complaints in any detail: it's all built on very brittle foundations. What they want is the feeling of collective moral action, of clarity of purpose, of being a part of something bigger than building the next chat app, and they're able to get that at Google where it wouldn't be tolerated at most companies. It's exactly because this sort of activity does not affect their career prospects or might even enhance them that is why they do it: remember that their promotions aren't decided by management at Google but rather, by committees of the same sorts of people who are protesting. People with 0 confidence aren't conducting walk-outs, they aren't whistleblowing on Google's questionable military deals. This is exactly what people with no self confidence in their own goodness would do. If they were secure in their own morality, in their own sense of living a right life, they wouldn't be attempting to find it by engaging in constant cultural crusades inside their own place of work. It seems quite clear to me that many of their supposed moral positions aren't well thought through and exist primarily so they can protest. In other words, the protests aren't a means to an end (change of policy by Google's management), the protests are the end, in and of themselves, because it's via noisy displays of moral virtue that they find what they're truly looking for. If you like I can go through some of the inconsistencies in the various positions their employees have taken.