Yes, it might be "simpler" to just leave whenever you meet resistance on the job -- but it's also less rewarding.
Finally, I'd add that there are no perfect workplaces. There are also shared problems across entire industries.
Some people resign in protest, and some people stay and challenge the problem. It depends on the person.
Company culture changes. Companies change. The fact that you were told one thing or a company had a particular reputation when you joined doesn’t mean that thing will always hold true.
Union busting and discrimination are illegal. Terminating someone’s at-will employment because they are acting against the company’s interest isn’t.
From what I have read thus far, this situation sounds a lot more like the latter than the former despite some of the people involved claiming it’s the former.
Perhaps more facts will come out to support that position, but in the meantime I am with the grandparent post. These people want to have their cake (i.e. some of the largest total compensation packages in the industry) and eat it too (force policy by protesting management choices expecting no consequences).
It seems odd that you don't dispute that companies change, yet seem to dislike people trying to make a company change. Or do you believe it's only bad when the workers want things to change but find it acceptable when upper management fucks over the company culture?
I don’t “dislike” people trying to make a company change. There are ways to change companies from within, discreetly, by building consensus around those things you would like to change. It isn’t easy, and there is no guarantee of success. Often people trying to do exactly that end up losing their positions, or end up not advancing, as a result of being “out of step” with the culture.
That doesn’t appear to be what’s happening here at all, though. You have employees trying to publicly exert pressure on management. You cannot do that and expect no consequences.
Possibly.
> in the public eye
I seriously doubt that. People are busy and have a lot of things to be concerned about. The general perception of SV employees doesn't seem to be very favorable from what I've seen, either within the Bay Area or beyond. The average worker in middle America is not going to feel much compassion for people making $200k a year who end up out of work because they publicly challenge their employer.
> and with its workforce.
That's the calculus that they (Google management) needs to compute. How do they deal with this situation without angering so many people that they end up losing people they want to retain. The other side of that is of course the absolute disinterest in keeping people who are not key contributors but are likely to be "activist".
FWIW, I know ~50 people at Google, and although I am not in touch with most of them on a very regular basis, of the ones I have been in touch with exactly 0 of them have any sympathy for the positions of the people who are making a public scene.
What they are concerned with is the company being seen as a place where people are running amok and the work isn't seen as the first priority by the employees. That can be demoralizing to the rest of the staff who are interested in having impact and can affect recruiting if potential recruits think the company is a big hot mess.
Most likely, you aren't agreeing with all what your company does. There has to be some decision, either in management, or in product direction, or anything, that you disagree with and you tried, or will try, to change that. Is the solution simply to quit and get another job? Do you simply quit because improving that part is too complex? Or do you persevere because you believe in the company and think it can become so much better?