> I’m simply stating it’s foolish to expect Google to actively work against their best interests.
I think you're indulging in reification here. Google has no best interests because Google is just a legal fiction with no real-world existence apart from its constituent individuals. The investors have their interests. Management has their interests. The workers have their interests. But Google itself has no interests, and for too long we've conflated the interests of Google's management and investors with those of the company as a whole while disregarding those of the vast majority of the people associated with Google: the workers whose work makes Google's billions in revenue possible while getting pennies on every dollar of value they provide.
> To provide material support and a platform for unopposed speech on a viewpoint they actively oppose.
Management has no business having an opinion on unionization one way or the other. If anything, most managers should be pro-union since they're as likely to get thrown under the bus to keep profits up as their direct reports.
> There’s nothing stopping these employees from doing this on their own free time and with their own resources.
From an opsec viewpoint, the smart thing to do would be to organize outside Google offices and then blindside the company with a wildcat strike, but that's easier said than done when you're expected to work twelve hours a day to prove you're passionate.
"the workers whose work makes Google's billions in revenue possible while getting pennies on every dollar of value they provide."
Well, you assume that revenue represents value. How do you even know that? Maybe they are making the world worse on net. In which case, should the workers or investors be liable? I generally feel like it's a nice and fundamental feature of society that they aren't.
That's the standard capitalist assumption. Gotta make a billion dollars no matter who dies.
> Maybe they are making the world worse on net.
Maybe? Have you been paying attention at all?
> In which case, should the workers or investors be liable?
The investors and the management should be liable, under the "command responsibility" doctrine. If you give orders whose implementation makes the world suck more than it already does, then you should indeed be held liable for your orders.
Criminally liable.
> I generally feel like it's a nice and fundamental feature of society that they aren't.
I think that one of the reasons our society is broken is that the people in charge can get away with leaving working-class schmucks like me to hold the bag and take the fall whenever shit goes wrong.
> Management has no business having an opinion on unionization one way or the other. If anything, most managers should be pro-union since they're as likely to get thrown under the bus to keep profits up as their direct reports.
Unionization restricts the management's ability to adapt to new situations and challenges in the pursuit of profit. Shareholders hire and task management to do exactly that, which is why the two are almost always opposed to what is, in effect, tying of their hands.
That sounds like right-wing union-busting propaganda to me. Even if it isn't, why should I care if union representation makes management's job harder? I'm not management.
I think you're indulging in reification here. Google has no best interests because Google is just a legal fiction with no real-world existence apart from its constituent individuals. The investors have their interests. Management has their interests. The workers have their interests. But Google itself has no interests, and for too long we've conflated the interests of Google's management and investors with those of the company as a whole while disregarding those of the vast majority of the people associated with Google: the workers whose work makes Google's billions in revenue possible while getting pennies on every dollar of value they provide.
> To provide material support and a platform for unopposed speech on a viewpoint they actively oppose.
Management has no business having an opinion on unionization one way or the other. If anything, most managers should be pro-union since they're as likely to get thrown under the bus to keep profits up as their direct reports.
> There’s nothing stopping these employees from doing this on their own free time and with their own resources.
From an opsec viewpoint, the smart thing to do would be to organize outside Google offices and then blindside the company with a wildcat strike, but that's easier said than done when you're expected to work twelve hours a day to prove you're passionate.