Not trying to be smart by using your words: I legitimately have never understood why this comment is so common, considering how apparently obvious the fallacy of it is. You didn't imply "the company must do X", you implied "people shouldn't be upset that the company did X". The former is a totally reasonable argument to be made. The latter makes absolutely no sense (without extenuating context). You're not really confused as to why people are upset about something a company does that negatively affects people, either in actuality or only in perception, simply because it is in the company's best interests, are you? It's pretty normal for a human not to care about the hazy future consequences of a company hurting itself by embracing some external morality over its own interests as a company, and, depending on the specifics of the case, it can even be pretty reasonable not to care.
No I am actually confused. What normal CEO _wants_ a union? A few random ones maybe; but the average CEO? zero. I'm not even anti union, just anti "union protection" which is where we are with unions in the US under the current stat of NLRB findings + case law; which is just a fucking disaster.
