I.e. not collectively bargaining, instead hoping that enough other people will individually decide put their livelihood on the line to give employers the impression that things should change up, after which they will not be able to enjoy the changes because they switched job (which can be a pain in the ass regardless of opportunities).

> The reality is that Google is an easy place to work relative to how much people get paid. People don't want to leave a cushy job for one where they would have to work harder for their money, so instead, they are trying other means to have their cake and eat it too.

The relationship between an employer and employee is naturally adversarial in that there's a fundamental conflict between their interests. As an employee, I want to be paid as much as possible for my work (indeed as little work as possible), and I want it to be as pleasant as possible. The employer on the other hand will want me to do as much work as possible at as little cost as possible. Of course I want to provide value to my employer, and my employer wants to provide value to me, but that's because we both have my employment as a bargaining chip. That's my only chip, but it's only one of Google's ~100000.

In those terms, if you can approach having the cake and eating it, why not? Why should only my employer organize and use their massive resources to achieve their goals to the greatest extent possible, while workers should willfully stay disorganized and never utilize their collective influence like a corporation will? Because having two cakes is bad? There's certainly more than enough cake to go around in FAANG.