""" One of those employees, staff engineer Sophie Haskins, resigned Monday, stating in her resignation letter that she was leaving because the company did not cancel its contract with ICE and “shows no indication of canceling the contract,” which she wrote was “morally unacceptable.” """
I haven't come to any definitive conclusion, but my basic thought is:
(A) If you and your allies have a decent opportunity to build a worthy competitor or work for one (ie: a similar company that aligns with your purpose), do it and shout about it from the rooftops.
(B) If you and your allies don't have enough resources to build something better, fight from the inside until you do.
That is, employed in larger companies.
The US has a long history of implementation pessimizing desired outcome at the Southern border. For example, the number of undocumented permanent residents in the US went up when border control was tightened in previous administrations. Under lax border control, people could border-hop for a day or a week, take care of some business (mostly quite legal with the one exception of the failure to go through the entire process of a temporary visa), and go back. But when inspection constraints were tightened and checkpoints and fences went up, lots of hoppers decided that if they had to choose, they'd rather be trapped in the US than in Mexico. The intended effect of lowering undocumented residency boosted the numbers on undocumented residency. Oops. :-p
It's really about disagreeing with the views being espoused by the employees in question, not their methodology.
I don't think you have any data to back that up. I could just as easily see a lot of these people deferring to the "wisdom" of management.
I think the number of people who have left jobs when confronted with an ethical problem from their employer is quite small.
Fight's the other one. It really depends on whether you have more power to enact change by taking blood out of the system or diverting where it's pumped.