[candybar]

Sure, it's a privilege, but the privilege does not exist for the benefit of its employees.

> What purpose an organization turns it's work to is up to the people who make the decisions, and varied.

Just because they can do certain things does not mean it's ethical. Employees themselves are agents, not principals - employees making decisions to enrich themselves at the expense of actual owners is highly problematic from an ethical standpoint.

A lot of people in this thread seem to be confusing the fact that employees acting for the benefit of shareholders is not strictly enforceable and the benefit itself does not have to be monetary in nature with the idea that employees can do whatever they want with the power that they have. This is simply not the case - sure, employees don't have to maximize for the short-term profits or stock price, or even in some cases, companies can be mission-driven, with a long-term mission that's prioritized ahead of profit-maximizing.

None of this means it's reasonable to make a decision to hold on to employees for the employees' benefits, rather than the corporation's benefit, except to the extent that it helps the long-term mission of the company.