4 ms·

I don't understand ... why don't they quit and go work for a company that doesn't contract with the Israeli government?

pc86 2y ago
Because then they'd have to give up their stock grants, and most sane people aren't going to hire someone with a history of protesting their employer.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
close04 2y ago
It depends. If everyone leaves whenever there's a problem, then problems will never get fixed. Or if Google is a good employer except for this, leaving over this one thing instead of trying to fix it is like leaving a house instead of fixing that broken window.
- crabbone 2y ago
  Except... the problem is: this is not a problem that needs fixing. If Google was doing something illegal, then the employees would have every moral (and legal) right to protest and demand a change of policy. Google has protocols for appeals and complaints that employees can use. Even if those are just for show, the right course of action would be to use the advertised protocols, then, if they don't work, the employees would have a legitimate claim against the company. It's labor-intensive, time-consuming and expensive to follow such protocols. And, I can "understand" the protesters in the sense that I would, too, be discouraged by the prospects of doing things the right way... But, realistically... all these protests are going to accomplish is the workplace ethics violation on the part of the protesters, and, probably a boot. ---- As an aside: for someone living the events it feels surreal that people who are completely out of touch with the reality of the events become so enthused about the subject. Often times it's actually nice / conscientious people who get trapped by the most brazen lies about political / humanitarian issues far, far away...
  - close04 2y ago
    > Except... the problem is: this is not a problem that needs fixing. If Google was doing something illegal Every law changes something, making it legal or illegal. If changes weren't allowed we'd be stuck in one situation forever. Things become legal or illegal all the time so they don't and shouldn't change just when they're illegal. Usage of encryption could be illegal, and consuming drugs could be legal. And at some point it was legal/normal to decide people's rights based on gender, color, or sexual orientation. "Fixing" these problems is down to the morality of the observer. In a free society the law usually follows the morality of society or majority but with some significant inertia.
    - crabbone 2y ago
      Picketing Google's CEO is not the way to change the law. If you don't like the law, there's a category of people generally known as "lawmakers" -- typically elected representatives of wider groups of people who are then endowed with the power to change the laws. You should either try to influence the lawmakers directly, or indirectly through electing other lawmakers. In other words, there's nothing really new to what I wrote: if you don't like what Google is doing, there's a way to appeal, contest, you name it. The legal ways to do this are designed the way they are in order to take into account the freedoms and convenience of people involved in the process. > "Fixing" these problems is down to the morality of the observer. No, it's not. Laws are designed to regulate relationships between many people for the benefit of many people in most cases. And in the case in point, that's exactly what they are meant to do. The morality of individual observer is not and should not be the authority to fix these laws. Pretty much the same reason why individuals in most but the very trivial cases are not allowed to prosecute the law: this creates anarchy, and, in practice, leads to something like what's happening in Haiti today -- gang violence, failed economy, failed medical system etc.
lern_too_spel 2y ago
The same reason people had a sit-in at the Woolworth's diner instead of just eating elsewhere, presumably.
- readyman 2y ago
  [flagged]
aaomidi 2y ago
I've seen in history classes that people wondered why didn't anyone protest IBMs involvement with Nazi Germany at the time. I think we're seeing how that mentality forms, today.
PurpleRamen 2y ago
Why should they start with the end of their options?
sebastianconcpt 2y ago
Because the sensation of being part of a subversive mission fulfills the need of purpose for the revolutionary mind. Good follow up questions are how long did that mindset took to become so influential and from who and where did it came from? For them, this will be like a trophy among their revolutionary peers.

pc86 2y ago

Because then they'd have to give up their stock grants, and most sane people aren't going to hire someone with a history of protesting their employer.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

close04 2y ago

It depends. If everyone leaves whenever there's a problem, then problems will never get fixed. Or if Google is a good employer except for this, leaving over this one thing instead of trying to fix it is like leaving a house instead of fixing that broken window.

crabbone 2y ago
Except... the problem is: this is not a problem that needs fixing. If Google was doing something illegal, then the employees would have every moral (and legal) right to protest and demand a change of policy. Google has protocols for appeals and complaints that employees can use. Even if those are just for show, the right course of action would be to use the advertised protocols, then, if they don't work, the employees would have a legitimate claim against the company. It's labor-intensive, time-consuming and expensive to follow such protocols. And, I can "understand" the protesters in the sense that I would, too, be discouraged by the prospects of doing things the right way... But, realistically... all these protests are going to accomplish is the workplace ethics violation on the part of the protesters, and, probably a boot. ---- As an aside: for someone living the events it feels surreal that people who are completely out of touch with the reality of the events become so enthused about the subject. Often times it's actually nice / conscientious people who get trapped by the most brazen lies about political / humanitarian issues far, far away...
- close04 2y ago
  > Except... the problem is: this is not a problem that needs fixing. If Google was doing something illegal Every law changes something, making it legal or illegal. If changes weren't allowed we'd be stuck in one situation forever. Things become legal or illegal all the time so they don't and shouldn't change just when they're illegal. Usage of encryption could be illegal, and consuming drugs could be legal. And at some point it was legal/normal to decide people's rights based on gender, color, or sexual orientation. "Fixing" these problems is down to the morality of the observer. In a free society the law usually follows the morality of society or majority but with some significant inertia.
  - crabbone 2y ago
    Picketing Google's CEO is not the way to change the law. If you don't like the law, there's a category of people generally known as "lawmakers" -- typically elected representatives of wider groups of people who are then endowed with the power to change the laws. You should either try to influence the lawmakers directly, or indirectly through electing other lawmakers. In other words, there's nothing really new to what I wrote: if you don't like what Google is doing, there's a way to appeal, contest, you name it. The legal ways to do this are designed the way they are in order to take into account the freedoms and convenience of people involved in the process. > "Fixing" these problems is down to the morality of the observer. No, it's not. Laws are designed to regulate relationships between many people for the benefit of many people in most cases. And in the case in point, that's exactly what they are meant to do. The morality of individual observer is not and should not be the authority to fix these laws. Pretty much the same reason why individuals in most but the very trivial cases are not allowed to prosecute the law: this creates anarchy, and, in practice, leads to something like what's happening in Haiti today -- gang violence, failed economy, failed medical system etc.

lern_too_spel 2y ago

The same reason people had a sit-in at the Woolworth's diner instead of just eating elsewhere, presumably.

readyman 2y ago
[flagged]

aaomidi 2y ago

I've seen in history classes that people wondered why didn't anyone protest IBMs involvement with Nazi Germany at the time. I think we're seeing how that mentality forms, today.

PurpleRamen 2y ago

Why should they start with the end of their options?

sebastianconcpt 2y ago

Because the sensation of being part of a subversive mission fulfills the need of purpose for the revolutionary mind. Good follow up questions are how long did that mindset took to become so influential and from who and where did it came from? For them, this will be like a trophy among their revolutionary peers.