That’s not being trapped. That’s being greedy. There’s nothing wrong with trying to preserve massive TCs with the WLB of Google but let’s not pretend there is actually any plight here.
The truth is, many Google software engineers are unhappy with the political choices that Google are making. Yeah, they could vote with their feet and quit, but would you take a massive pay cut and financially destabilize your family as the first course of action? I wouldn't; I'd try to exact change from within, whilst protecting the benefits I'd earned in the workplace.
And all that's just looking at the individuals benefits. Unionising would mean that I, a straight white man, could help support policies that empower my minority co-workers.
This defense will be relatively easy for Google's leadership to counter. To the extent that it's used, the leadership will be able to say that the unionization effort isn't about working conditions. Instead, it's about political differences (and political differences that are distinct from what almost anyone thinks of as "working conditions").
I could be wrong, but "Google SWEs are unhappy with the leadership's political choices" doesn't sound like a winning rhetorical strategy.
It’s a classic principal agent problem. You want to take the voting power away from those with the financial stake and expect the people without a financial mistake to make good business decisions.
I'd say the second criteria is infinitely more useful, and empirically it works. The most stable bank in North America is democratically run by both customers and employees, I'm a very happy customer, and I know of many happy employees.
Tomato. Tomato. (This doesn't work on the internet.)
No doubt it's a trap of their own making but it is a trap nonetheless. The idea of giving up the fancy things that you've worked hard for, maybe having to sell your house, take your kids out of a school you pay for, etc just so you can leave the company you work for and go somewhere 'better' is a hard choice that no doubt feels selfish. The decision has a significant and material impact on other people after all.
Very few of us would prefer to earn a 250k salary that comes with the freedom to move to other companies, even though that's a lot, if there's a 600k job on offer instead. We'd all take the higher paying job and maybe regret it later. I don't think it's very fair to suggest those who are in that position are wrong or stupid to have put themselves there.
I think what’s being stated is that if you can’t manage to be happy within the top 1% income bracket, maybe focusing on more wealth isn’t the way to find fulfillment. It’s not about being wrong or stupid, it’s about misunderstanding what needs to be optimized.
I had the good pay at Google and I left. I had to give up early retirement goals to do it but there are things more important than just money. You can still live a very comfortable upper middle class life in the Bay Area on 250k.
Additionally, most Google engineering positions are not that specialized and getting a position at another FAANG or hot startup with TC higher than 250k would not be very difficult.
The only entity that stands to lose from their greed is one of the largest monopolies in the world. Why do you feel they need to be protected from greed?
Your responsibilities will be the same, though.