When one side has all the power and the other side has none, to pretend that the benefit of the doubt accrues equally to both is an act of moral cowardice.
You seem to be suggesting that the only relevant information is that there is a "big" corporation involved and that the particulars of the situation are irrelevant.
I'm just suggesting that the particulars of the case are important to deciding who is acting in a "morally superior way" (to use the phrasing from the earlier comment.
That an engineer whose work I greatly respect, whose VP role gave him vastly more knowledge of the corporation's inner workings, walked away from seven figures of RSUs and whatever no doubt sizable other compensation, because he agrees with the folks making minimum wage that their situation is bullshit, I'd think should add considerable point to the argument.
But Bray's action, while commendable, is severable here. If you need convincing that corporate power vastly outweighs labor power in the United States of 2020, I'm not the person to do it, for the same reason I'm not the person to convince anyone that water is wet or fire is hot. You might try struggling along paycheck to paycheck for a while, working some place like an Amazon warehouse, if you don't know what it's like. Or you might try listening to people who do when they tell you what it's like. Beyond that, I really don't know how to help you.
> Q: Why does it seem like big corps never get the benefit of the doubt?
> A: Big corps don't get the benefit of the doubt because they are big. Anyone who disagrees is a moral coward.
The first rule of firearms safety is that the gun is always loaded, because any other assumption will far too easily betray you into deadly error. The first rule of electrical safety is that you always keep one hand behind your back, because it only takes a few milliseconds for a cross-body current to stop your heart. Economic power, similarly concentrated, is differently risky, but not less so. Some things - no matter how useful they may be when properly handled - are simply too dangerous to ever be trusted.
This seems like pretty lazy thinking to me.
It's not impossible to convince people of that, but you're going to need to work at it, because you're asking them to believe something that's the direct opposite of the situation they're actually seeing with their own two eyes.
If you want to call something lazy, why not start with the kind of thinking that takes such a mealy-mouthed, "we can't know for sure until all the facts are in" approach to that?