Your comment suggests rank and file had power to shut it down (they didn't: it was the public scrutiny), or that it was shut down in response to happening a decade before it was shut down.
From what I remember the internal pressure was pretty intense, that the story about employees being against it is what the press covered and what caused the public scrutiny. You could claim that employee opinion would have been meaningless without public coverage of that opinion, but that is another argument all together.