Hacker News Reader

Comment by cherryteastain | Hacker News Reader

Trying to change things materially from the inside against the wishes of the higher ups probably means your career stalls or you'll be fired anyway. From the perspective of your career, you may as well find a new job while you have the leverage from the current one and then make your statement as you leave. There is almost nothing a non C-suite person can do to change things in this context.

View on HN

I'm not pretending there isn't very real risk of retribution, but I do think this can be done under the protections under the NLRA so long as it's done right (as in, seek legal guidance first).

This also isn't to fault anyone who instead chooses to leave, instead.

I also think your comments diminishes the actual impact lots of folks have had, such as stopping donation to certain PACs. Relative to many other groups of workers, tech workers actually have more leverage.

Not to mention the long history of whistleblowers.

Lots of lists of people who, in a just society, would be valorized and treated as national heroes:

https://www.whistleblowers.org/how-whistleblowers-changed-th...

https://stfrancislaw.com/blog/10-most-famous-whistleblowers/

From the perspective of your career, the best thing to do is not have objections, or really any principles at all, in the first place.

Sometimes people have to choose between doing the right thing and doing the easy thing.

> ... and doing the easy thing.

Or for that matter, doing the possible/doable thing vs trying (and failing) the impossible. Sometimes "the right thing" is just not possible because the obstacles in place are literally insurmountable. At that point your only real options left are a) pick a thing that can be done and do that instead (not always "easy"), or b) give up and accept "that's just the way things are".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com