4 ms·

Google employees sure love to chip away at the branch they are standing on.

by rapsey 7y ago

ravenstine 7y ago
Google should just call their bluff. The company isn't going to "cut carbon emissions entirely", and I'd bet that next to none of these employees would quit and toss away their fat paycheck over climate change. In the best case scenario, Google spends money to clean up their emissions and these same employees wonder why they're not seeing as big of pay raises.
- sharemywin 7y ago
  They're not getting big pay raises because they don't understand what an S curve is.
- ianmobbs 7y ago
  > I'd bet that next to none of these employees would quit and toss away their fat paycheck over climate change. So quitting is the only acceptable solution to disagreeing with your company? That'd ridiculous.
gdulli 7y ago
I don't think that's as useful an analogy when there's a million branches and it's easy to find another. Sure, in other industries people don't have the same luxury of speaking up.
tharne 7y ago
I've never understood why they don't just go work somewhere else. A publicly traded corporation has a legal obligation to maximize value for their shareholders, even if that means doing business with ICE, big oil, the military, etc. A CEO who continually turns away legitimate and legal business on moral grounds can be removed, and in some cases sued by the board of directors. If you have qualms with working for a large corporation whose primarily purpose is to maximize value and profit within the boundaries of the law, then you need to find a non-profit or privately held firm that's more aligned with your values and flourish there.
- sharemywin 7y ago
  Should all these guys be sued? https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/19/nearly-200-ceos-say-shareholder-profit-isnt-everything/#61899fb9d410 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/19/nearly...
  - tharne 7y ago
    You'd better believe that if these CEO's who say shareholder value isn't everything, stopped delivering on growth and earnings, they'd be shown the door real quick. They're free to say shareholder value isn't everything so long as they act as if it is. Should the law be written this way? Probably not, but that's a much larger and somewhat tangential debate. This is about a group of talented people who have the option to put some skin in the game and take their labor elsewhere, but who choose instead to put forth empty talk about the ethics of their employer all while enjoying the lifestyle that employer has offered them.
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      > Should the law be written this way? No, which is why it's a good thing the law is not written that way.
- edejong 7y ago
  Part of maximizing profit is dependent upon being able to attract and retain top performing human resources. Another part is public perception: brand value and customer engagement. Yet another part in dependent on their network of partners, who might want to refrain from doing business with parties engaged in unsound (unethical) business practices. Since large parts of these are hidden variables and only come to light when certain actions are taken, I would say it is actually in the shareholders best interest for employees to complain and strike. The alternative is that top talent is leaving the company, partners untie relations and customers seek alternatives. It's all about perception and communication.
- ahelwer 7y ago
  Why not work to change things internally? Why run away? Clearly internal change is possible, so why do you want us to turn away from this course of action available to us?

Google employees sure love to chip away at the branch they are standing on.

by rapsey 7y ago

Google employees sure love to chip away at the branch they are standing on.

Google should just call their bluff. The company isn't going to "cut carbon emissions entirely", and I'd bet that next to none of these employees would quit and toss away their fat paycheck over climate change. In the best case scenario, Google spends money to clean up their emissions and these same employees wonder why they're not seeing as big of pay raises.

sharemywin 7y ago
They're not getting big pay raises because they don't understand what an S curve is.
ianmobbs 7y ago
> I'd bet that next to none of these employees would quit and toss away their fat paycheck over climate change. So quitting is the only acceptable solution to disagreeing with your company? That'd ridiculous.

gdulli 7y ago

I don't think that's as useful an analogy when there's a million branches and it's easy to find another. Sure, in other industries people don't have the same luxury of speaking up.

tharne 7y ago

I've never understood why they don't just go work somewhere else. A publicly traded corporation has a legal obligation to maximize value for their shareholders, even if that means doing business with ICE, big oil, the military, etc. A CEO who continually turns away legitimate and legal business on moral grounds can be removed, and in some cases sued by the board of directors. If you have qualms with working for a large corporation whose primarily purpose is to maximize value and profit within the boundaries of the law, then you need to find a non-profit or privately held firm that's more aligned with your values and flourish there.

sharemywin 7y ago
Should all these guys be sued? https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/19/nearly-200-ceos-say-shareholder-profit-isnt-everything/#61899fb9d410 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/19/nearly...
- tharne 7y ago
  You'd better believe that if these CEO's who say shareholder value isn't everything, stopped delivering on growth and earnings, they'd be shown the door real quick. They're free to say shareholder value isn't everything so long as they act as if it is. Should the law be written this way? Probably not, but that's a much larger and somewhat tangential debate. This is about a group of talented people who have the option to put some skin in the game and take their labor elsewhere, but who choose instead to put forth empty talk about the ethics of their employer all while enjoying the lifestyle that employer has offered them.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    > Should the law be written this way? No, which is why it's a good thing the law is not written that way.
edejong 7y ago
Part of maximizing profit is dependent upon being able to attract and retain top performing human resources. Another part is public perception: brand value and customer engagement. Yet another part in dependent on their network of partners, who might want to refrain from doing business with parties engaged in unsound (unethical) business practices. Since large parts of these are hidden variables and only come to light when certain actions are taken, I would say it is actually in the shareholders best interest for employees to complain and strike. The alternative is that top talent is leaving the company, partners untie relations and customers seek alternatives. It's all about perception and communication.
ahelwer 7y ago
Why not work to change things internally? Why run away? Clearly internal change is possible, so why do you want us to turn away from this course of action available to us?