What a strange statement. "We support their right to criticize their working conditions, only actually we don't at all"
Because that is if you don't agree with company policy or whatever company is doing, you should not work there. They should lose all employees and go bust.
In practice I understand one would like to disagree and things should change to better. But life is not that simple, so if you can afford quitting please do so (if you are wealthy enough even in their face saying what they should do better), if you somehow cannot afford that, for the sake of your close ones really put your head down and work your way through... there is nothing bad I could say about such person, those are just circumstances.
That said - for all those assholes that should say something because they have their comfortable position in a company ... fuck them really bad!
That is why I highly regard Snowden, he had comfortable position, yet he went against all of that. If he would be someone oppressed and making barely living wage that would be just a normal thing that someone would like to fight for a better life ....
The idea that using logistics technology to enable fast and efficient delivery of household goods is a nice thing to have in our world?
> For those people they would support all policies for the greater company good.
That's just a narrative you are constructing. Obviously it doesn't apply to the whistleblowers in question here or they wouldn't have spoken out in the first place.