If you truly object to what your employer does then quit. In this case you are highly paid and skilled talent that is not stuck in your job.
I have much more sympathy for the like of service workers, factory workers, et.al. that lack the mobility of jobs that these people have.
I think the only element of surprise/outrage was that seeming bystanders also got fired.
To understand this, consider Google’s position here; cynically it makes sense to use this as an opportunity for an “Object Lesson” (in Horowitz’s terminology). The decision to fire everyone here was obviously excessive, and that is the point. A proportionate response would not convey the message as clearly to staff. “Bring your whole self to work” is no longer the rule, this is clearly an attempt to signal that employees must yield to corporate values (or go elsewhere if they disagree). In other words the standard expectations from your employer, outside the SV bubble.
Ya but that was coordinated by the union for the benefit of the union, right? These people are going rogue. I don't think the UAW would support them either.
They would absolutely support members protesting what the members believe is a human rights violation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike
The case that sets the definitive answer is in 1939 by the Supreme Court:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Fansteel_Metallurgic....
It leaves wiggle little room to get anything out of this from the company being striked against.
Furthermore, it says absolutely nothing about the union itself protecting an employee, just the limits of the NRLB in forcing a worker to be rehired.
Otherwise ya… no wiggle room.
If the union voted on it and it was approved, then I think they would certainly support the protesters. If they didn't and protestors just did it on their own, that would be a big mess and I'm not sure what would happen, but I would guess expulsion from the union.
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/discipline-your-trade-u...
https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes#:~:text=Strikes%20unlawful%20be....
> The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a “sitdown” strike, when employees simply stay in the plant and refuse to work is not protected by the law.
Also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike#:~:text=A%20w....).
When the Supreme Court rules on this topic specifically, union lawyers are going to be fairly clear about the consequences and advice strongly against it. Whoever organized this at Google either didn’t do a basic Google search or didn’t care about very clear consequences.
I really doubt Google is going to spend much on this at all.
But even assuming that is correct, unions wouldn’t support this because it doesn’t fall under the mandate or the union, which is to protect the direct interests of its members. Some unions may broaden this to protect the interests of the industry at large, but even that is because it’s considered related to the direct interests of the members.
Unions may canvass their members to support other causes outside the workplace but they’re not gonna shut down the workplace to support a cause that doesn’t directly affect their members.
Companies don't play by the rules. I see no problem with protests bending rules to make that protest harder to ignore.
If you want to make a change in the world, then quit wielding your power and just voluntarily surrender it!
>I have much more sympathy for the like of service workers, factory workers, et.al. that lack the mobility of jobs that these people have.
I don't share or care about your guilty tech bro self-loathing. I will continue to make a half million dollars a year barely working while using my time and money to accomplish what political goals I see fit. Any serious activist should do the same. Don't fall for this bullshit narrative that you have to voluntarily live in poverty to be a populist.