zlacker

>>tech-h+(OP)
I don't really understand why it's surprising to anyone that they would face "internal retaliation" after exposing their employer as evil and boycott worthy to the entire world. By publicizing it to the degree that they did and attaching their name to it, they were putting their interests over the company. If my company started doing business practices that I didn't approve of, I would try my hardest to change the direction from the inside out or I would leave and then criticize. I don't understand the desire to stay with a company and accept paychecks while simultaneously publicly denouncing and leading protests against them.

>>charli+Cf
I believe the strong term "evil" is only used because Google's motto is "don't be evil".

Not everyone has the freedom to instantly change jobs. The world might be a better place if employees had the right to whistle blow without being threatened with homelessness or fleeing to Russia.

Unions striking and protesting against their companies for better wages seems acceptable. Why is protesting for ethical reasons without quitting faux pas?

>>peteey+Lh
Well the Unionization has received explicit protections in being fought for and even then it isn't liked in US companies at the corporate level to put it mildly - seen only as unmitigated downsides and something to avoid. But workers can all agree on wanting more wages or better working conditions even if they may argue on how they are distributed (fixed paygrades vs performancel.

Ethics protests aren't so enshrined for one. The views of ethics are often personal and ideologically entangled to some degree. Self selection has been more favored and the protests bring to mind the "obvious" but assailable objection "Why not just quit and associate with others more like-minded." It gets into messy areas of rights of association in ideal vs practice. Ideology isn't protected and is explicitly trumped by other areas like anti-discrimination laws.

Many can see "strawman" can of worms being opened (they may be reasonable in this case but what of successors) accepted as a norm without a sensible defined law or doctrine. There were the whole clerks refusing shall issue marriage licenses and nobody wants a situation disrupted by free rider "do nothing vegans in the slaughterhouse" or similar absurdities.

This isn't saying the current situation is ideal at all but that changes are non-trivial and there are reasons to suspect the precedent would be preferrable to most.