Hacker News Reader

Comment by ocdtrekkie | Hacker News Reader

Indeed, they know few to none of these petitioners will quit. 3,000 petition signatures will do nothing. 3,000 resignations would, but Googlers aren't going to pass up on the high paychecks, three five-star meals a day, and massages in the office based on moral grounds.

(In the same vein, Google's NetPAC has been quietly donating the max to Republicans like Paul Ryan and Steve Scalise, while most of their engineers openly oppose them.)

View on HN

I know at least one Googler who really will quit if Google continues to contribute to drone warfare research.

Yes, they like the high paychecks, five-star meals and massages, but the market for ML and AI experts is very strong right now. The high paycheck can be matched elsewhere, and the benefits of not contributing to drone warfare research are worth spending a bit of that money on food and massages.

But as I said, I only know of one for sure. Whether or not there are enough to sway Google is yet to be seen.

This is good to hear, even in a single-person capacity.

Since Google isn't going to stop this work, I'd love to hear when this person actually leaves.

I would be more interested if 10% of petitioners leave. Single accomplished person can easily move defending their moral position.

Respect to that one Googler. But are those 3000 in the category of experts which would hurt Google if they leave.

I am doubtful that paycheck can be match elsewhere in companies which are more morally upright than Google. However if it is single issue protest about military but acts regarding user data usage, financial, environmental or other type of dodgy behavior is okay then these people can definitely move on to different employers.

Any three thousand people leaving would be a huge hit. There's massive retraining costs and inefficiencies with lost knowledge, even if you could extremely quickly hire 3,000 qualified replacements above their existing hiring rate. The article does suggest some very senior names are signatories, but obviously doesn't disclose who.

I know multiple people who work at Google that are quitting because of this. Lots of people have lines in the sand when it comes to violence and military work, but those lines are deep for a reason and they don't really want to talk about them so you'd never know.

That’s convenient.

That a tech worker on a tech website knows some people at a major tech company? Guess what I know people that work at almost every tech company you've heard of, that's what happens when you get old.

Try just going to eat at the Pho place across the street from Google in Boulder sometime, you'll hear people openly complaining about Sundar and Susan and chatting about their latest projects at full volume without a care in the world.

I assume the parent meant that it was convenient they didn't talk about the topic, or that you couldn't give examples. Most everyone on HN knows a lot of people at major tech companies.

Anyways, we'll see what happens, if the company doesn't give in perhaps we will see some more "why I quit Google" blogs down the road.

> are quitting

Do you mean these people have handed in notices or are planning on quitting in the next day or so? Or do you mean these people are considering quitting if google doesn't change its ways? Or do you mean "Some people I know are saying that they will quit" but have no short term plan for actually quitting?

Quitting a job over an ethical issue doesn't take long. It goes like this: "I quit!"

And then, those people are no longer 'quitting' but now have become 'have quit.'

That’s generally not how collective bargaining works. After petition, the next step would be a strike, not mass resignations. Then if there is no resolution between management and labor, there will be terminations and regulations.

Perhaps before going to premature conclusions, it might be worthwhile to wait and see how management reacts.

There really isn't a formal structure for this yet, is there? AFAIK, Googlers aren't unionized, though I definitely know a few interested that are in being so.

I am also curious if you know of prior examples of strikes being on moral grounds, I usually associate a strike with demands for employee rights or compensation, not corporate behavior.

This starts to move past the edge of my zone of knowledge, I've never been union, my knowledge of them is relatively basic.

There have been many strikes on moral grounds, maybe most of them. Unions were invented as much for civil rights as they were for worker's rights. Martin Luther King basically went around the South organising and staging strikes. Civil rights couldn't have been won otherwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com