If you view it as a signing bonus it makes perfect sense. They want to get you in the door but also don't want you to take advantage of them by quitting immediately. In that case you wouldn't be entitled to it if you left voluntarily or were fired for cause but being laid off is entirely their choice.
Now to be clear, stock options are completely different, and in the vast majority of cases, I'd value those at zero or near-zero.
If you recognize something as wrong in principle when taken to the extreme shouldn't you also regard milder instances to be wrong as well? "Well sure, if you steal $1M that's obviously immoral but that guy only stole $100."
Of course in this case I recognize that there's quite a bit of uncertainty over how exactly the intent and representation of RSUs ought to be interpreted. I had always seen them as akin to a signing bonus but it's clear now that many people don't share that perspective.
This is bizarre. When you agree to take a $100k base salary, you don't get all $100k on the first day; your salary is split into pay periods, and if you leave earlier (voluntary or not) then you don't get the rest of the year's salary by default (severance aside).
I'll agree with you that RSUs for public companies should not have cliffs. But the idea that you agree to a large amount of compensation up-front (so that re-negotiation is infrequent) which is then paid out in portions on a regular basis is very standard, for both cash and equity.
And yes, obviously a contract can be declared void, but have consumer protection agencies started going after companies for not vesting immediately after a layoff? If not, then I don’t see how that’s relevant.