It's hard to blame someone who's just trying to get by for taking a job, and I'm not especially interested in levying blame. What I'm more interested in is ensuring that people feel able to lodge their complaints about injustices.
People should be political about which missions they support. What I think is wrong is accepting a position at a company knowing what their mission is, and then using one's position at the company to push for a different mission while castigating others in the company for not doing the same. If media reports are correct, this is what happened at Coinbase, as a handful of employees refused to work unless their CEO made a political statement about the issue of alleged systemic racial injustice against black Americans.
As for lodging their complaints about injustice - that's vague. Injustice in the workplace? Nothing in the protocol discourages that. Or injustice in the wider world? The complaints should be lodged with the relevant parties, outside of the workplace.
It isn't! It's strictly better to boycott than to abide.
The observations are as follows:
* Boycotting is, for a multitude of reasons, not always a reasonable option for individuals
* Companies are aware that some of their best potential talent won't work for them unless they emphasize at least some social good
* It's not especially surprising that people who are attracted by the promise of some social good want more, and are upset or angry when they realize that their company's ethical stances are superficial or self-serving
* Conversely, it's not especially surprising that companies that aggressively pursue "apolitical" positions are the ones that are perhaps the most objectionable: defense contractors, financial companies that benefit from organized crime, &c, and find themselves in the company of employees who actively favor the company's unethical positions
To be clear: it's a double bind for companies, and it's always been one. I wouldn't want it any other way!
