”Nearly nine out of ten, or 86 percent, of millennials (those between the ages of 22 and 37) would consider taking a pay cut to work at a company whose mission and values align with their own, according to LinkedIn’s latest Workplace Culture report. By comparison, only 9 percent of baby boomers (those between the ages of 54 and 72) would.“
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/nearly-9-out-of-10-millennia...
“At least those are the results of a new survey out from insurer MetLife, which found that nine out of 10 people would choose a company with similar values over a job that pays more. And they are willing to take a pretty big pay cut to make sure those values align with their own.
The average pay cut employees were willing to take was 21%. The findings were not limited to high-wage earners: People who made less than $50,000 a year also said they still were willing to part with at least some of their salaries for the right company.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/11/29/money-no-lon...
”Almost half the workforce (42%) now want to work for an organisation that has a positive impact on the world, according to research carried out by consultancy Global Tolerance. The survey of more than 2,000 people in the UK found 44% thought meaningful work that helped others was more important than a high salary and 36% would work harder if their company benefitted society.
The change, it would appear, is being driven by the so-called millennials. Of those born between 1981 and 1996, 62% want to work for a company that makes a positive impact, half prefer purposeful work to a high salary, and 53% would work harder if they were making a difference to others.“
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/may/05...
Now how many actually do? Not that many, for sure.
"By comparison, only 9 percent of baby boomers (those between the ages of 54 and 72) would."
> Now how many actually do? Not that many, for sure.
Conjecture at best.
That's why they are protesting, you know. Because "having an opinion", "not being chained by a loan until you are old", and so on should not be a "privileged" position in any sort of environment I personally want to live in.
What is your point exactly anyway? "Not all people can afford to express opinions and influence their employers, so those who can should not be taken into account"?
That's a non-sequitur, if you like attaching fallacy labels to statements.
Says who? I don't know about your ethical system, but mine certainly doesn't demand that I confine ethics to one sphere and never let it touch the others. Indeed, such an ethical system sounds completely broken to me.
"I can treat you this way but you can't treat me the same way" sounds hypocritical does it not? You're right so you get to discriminate be intoletant and harm others,is that what you're saying? If you're so right let us use established systems of society to codify your beliefs,don't use your influence amd wallet to twist arms like a coward against those who lack your power and influence.
A system where people don't arm-twist and harm each other but use civilized discussion and peaceful discourse to patiently bring about desired change is what I support.
I do not support using your power as an employer, business owner,boss, monopoly(google) and other positions of power and influence to force others to practice your beliefs! I bet you would lose your mind if a religious person enforcef their religious beliefs the same way or if the people you disagree with did the same thing.
With your way,it is not the voice of who is right or of the majority that prevails but the strongest and most powerful win. And with your way phsyical violence and war are inevitable. Like ghandi said,be the change you wish to see. And tell others with your lowdest most peaceful voice,that's peaceful change. If that don't work for you then use violence and arm-twisting like this and let history repeat once more.
But yet some regressive herd action always ends up carrying the current day, only to be lamented twenty years later, when a different but philosophically-similar goal will carry.
You wouldn't say that an individual choosing to not work at a specific company was "impractical" or "toxic", nor would you say that a small business avoiding a certain type of client was either. The real measure is when it becomes coercive.
Your comment is getting traction because red-flavor-thinking has been put in the position of pushing back against powerful corporations censoring individual speech. One of the justifications from the power-cheerleaders is "voluntary association", completely ignoring the power imbalance. And so the overall concept of voluntary association takes collateral damage despite being valid when applied honestly.
Voluntary association is a legal right but not associating based on political affiliation I am pretty sure is illegal and if not it should be. It is coercion when employees protest a company's business partners,they are using their high demand skills that got them employed to advance personal political ends. They are using their collective power to coerce business decisions in order to harm their political opposition.
The right to refuse service to customers, and birth control to employees, on the basis of religious belief of business owners, has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court.
That is not the case at all.
Looking at the cases you linked, I suspect if GCP were to deny services to gay people or abortion service providers the courts would determine that circumstances were different.
Take a look at the success of the Civil Rights movement. Do you think segregation would have ended as quickly had black activists simply stuck to laws and elections, and not protested and deliberately did things that were actually illegal: like sitting in the front of a bus or disobeyed police orders to disperse while protesting?
The extra-legal actions of the protesters and the brutal response of the authorities (all documented through the mass media) made way more people aware of their cause and gained them many allies.
Or take a look at all the labor activism in the US, back when unions were strong, which brought about things like the 40-hour work week and workplace health regulations: these were not won merely through elections.
Or look at the Suffragettes, who helped win the right for women to vote not by restricting themselves to winning elections but by direct action.
Or India's successful struggle to independence under the leadership of Gandhi. Once again, it was coordinated activism which made the difference.
The list of such successful activism could grow very long.
Which isn't to say elections are useless (though with all the easily hackable electronic voting machines and vote counting machines out there, sometimes I wonder), but to reject activism in favor of elections is to give up a very powerful tool for change.
And you think removing their access to GCP is going to stop them?
Weaning ourselves off of oil is the first step not the last.
If they start producing oil unsafely as a result of thinning margins, we protest that all the same.
That's the form our "baby steps" take, not second guessing whether it's the "right time" to protest oil companies doing bad things.
What are the bad thing oil companies do? Extract the oil you and I pay them to extract?
Spill millions of gallons of oil into the wilderness.
Lobby the government to let them get away with spilling millions of gallons of oil.
Lobby the government to prevent the building of public transit.
Shill against climate change activism.
...in the US. I am sorry that I keep pointing that out, but global warming is being fought by most elected leaders right now. With some moderate success. The per capita emission in the world has plateaued, despite a positive economic growth. OECD countries have seen a decrease, China seems to come close to plateau as well.
US' leaders are the ones who unilaterally pulled from Kyoto and Paris treaties.
And I mean, even in the US, CO2 emissions are diminishing, in huge parts because of environmental policies.
2) illegal does not mean violent and harmful. A peaceful protest is fine, I actually support that. Being loud so you can be heard is fine too. What is not fine is expecting companies to refuse to do business with your opposition in solidarity or any other move that is essentially harming your opponent and does not fall in line with peaceful activism. You shouldn't get someone fired, get businesses to stop offering services to them,exclude them from public events,subject them and their associates to humiliation and social isolation and of course you shouldn't cause them physical harm either.
If someone hires a person who denies climate change or if a person does business or works for big oil they are not responsible for the views and actions of the people/business they associate with and they do not owe anyone solidarity in form of terminating those relationships.
What yoy have these days is "activism" by form of isolating your opponents using anyone in a position of power to sever ties with them and if the pains of isolation are too much they might give way and let you win. To me that is cowardly and in some ways just as bad if not worse than physical violence. If you beat someone up they might heal,if you make them unhirable then they either starve or find more extreme people on their side to support them -- further solidifying their stance. I oppose cruelty as a method of bringing about positive change,ends don't justify means.
Moral beliefs would be a mockery if they were so strictly confined. The whole point of morality is that it's a set of rules on how to live your life by. They always apply, in every interaction with other humans.
Right now, for example, by attacking the OP as "toxic", you are applying your own moral beliefs to them.
And of course this is not "arm-twisting". Refusal to associate with somebody generally isn't - you are not owed anybody's company, labor, or their good disposition towards you.
> How would you like if businesses turn you away because of your unethical beliefs?
I'm perfectly fine with that.
This is such progress, and absolutely a direction we all should move in, and not at all creepy, scary, and disgusting AF.
I bet that they could look to China for ideas in this endeavor.
That's literally 1% of their workforce. I'm sure you can cherry pick 1% of any workforce, especially a company the size of Google, that agree with anything you might want to look for - regardless of neurodiversity or your belief in how liberal/conservative Google is as a whole.
Just reeks of folks looking for a story.
At least your coworkers are on your side and fighting for the good cause, unlike your employer.
One can be sick of people turning the office into a political battle-field and simultaneously have no problems with outward corporate lobbying. These are different problems.
It barely has anything to do with Google's work condition however, employees are demanding to have a say in who Google management choses to work with or not, that's a very different concern than negotiating severance, or worktime. Maybe that's how americans think about union in USA, that's definitely not what worker unions are about in Europe for instance.
call it what you like, writing ai for murder robots is wrong,
What about the people afraid for their personal safety and civil rights? I bet they'd love to ignore "politics".
They do, they just get framed by the media as "rioters".
Maybe the protests should be redirected...
I am saying a bunch of protesters at Google won't ever make them change about big oil and that they should focus on some achievable goals
So you are sick of politics...
> it’s a common topic among like-minded people in informal conversations.
but it's a common topic.
I think the real reason you are sick of politics is because you don't agree with the politics being discussed, not politics. The reason you don't talk about politics isn't being you are sick of it, but because "most of us are afraid of the outrage and call-out culture negatively impacting our careers."
Even in a throwaway account, you can't be honest with yourself. Are you really sick of politics, or are you just sick of other people's politics? What are you really trying to say. Your comment goes back and forth and it not clear. It's a throwaway account, so maybe you can actually say what you mean?