No, it doesn't. It means not privileging profits at the expense of people. It's possible to have profit as a goal without hurting people (in this fashion).
You need to be specific. Injuries? Stress? Responsibility? Overtime? General drudgery? People are paid a salary to do something they wouldn't do otherwise. There is always a downside. Laws exist to limit certain downsides, eg undue physical stress, sexual exploitation or too high a risk of injuries. If that was the actual policy goal, you would not say “We cannot allow corporations to put profit over people”, you would be mentioning a specific downside. Doing otherwise would be dishonest sloganeering.
Why should they mention a specific downside when they are merely expressing support for the overall idea? Ultimately it is all down to value judgements, in the same way you do not specify what constitutes undue physical stress as opposed to appropriate physical stress, nor when a risk of injury becomes too high.
You need to be specific. Injuries? Stress? Responsibility? Overtime? General drudgery? People are paid a salary to do something they wouldn't do otherwise. There is always a downside. Laws exist to limit certain downsides, eg undue physical stress, sexual exploitation or too high a risk of injuries. If that was the actual policy goal, you would not say “We cannot allow corporations to put profit over people”, you would be mentioning a specific downside. Doing otherwise would be dishonest sloganeering.