My experience is that HN often aligns with more Libertarian ideologies in the comment section.
But for some reason, many Libertarians have nothing but contempt for the former. It could be that the ideology has been a bit subverted...
I’m simply stating it’s foolish to expect Google to actively work against their best interests. To provide material support and a platform for unopposed speech on a viewpoint they actively oppose.
There’s nothing stopping these employees from doing this on their own free time and with their own resources.
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.
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.
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.
Free and without coercion is fine, but in union activities in the US, it is rarely, if ever the case.
Also look at how “scabs” are treated by union employees. They are often subjected to violence and threats if they choose to exercise their choice to ignore a strike. That is the opposite of free and without coercion.
And no, you aren’t coerced to work for any employer. You freely accept employment conditions in exchange for the agreed upon wage. However when unions get involved, you don’t have a choice — you get paid whatever the union decides. A “software engineer 3” is paid whatever the rate is for a software engineer 3. You can’t negotiate anything better. And, raises are determined by how long you exist at the job and not necessarily your productivity. Traditional unions were designed around workers that were interchangeable — assembly line type work where worker A and worker B are completely interchangeable: as long as the widget screw gets installed at your spot on the line, the work is done: there is no difference between workers doing the same job because it’s rote. When things like judgement, creativity, and other soft skills come into play, workers are quickly differentiated and don’t necessarily deserve the exact same wage because their output isn’t exactly the same as it would be for an assembly line worker.
Join a union if you want— that doesn’t give the union the right to negotiate on my behalf against my will. Unions are no different than labor monopolies and they should be treated with the same suspicion as we treat other monopolies.
Do you actually believe this? You can be honest; it's not like you're among friends here.
Or did I misunderstand your comment?