[mettamage]

This assumes that you think people operate on principles. As the years go on, it feels that people in the top seem to mostly operate on money.

The CEO has money and the power to fire that person if the employee is disliked. Maybe that shouldn't be a thing, maybe it should be illegal, but they'll find a way around it. Just because they can means that they will.

I wish it wasn't like that but that's how I see things are happening these days, save for perhaps a few nuances here and there.

[triceratops]

Every CEO technically has the power to fire anyone they dislike. I assume they usually don't out of some form of noblesse oblige, and aversion to PR problems. But mostly just because they're too busy to get involved in minor, petty shit like this.

For most normal CEOs criticism from a low-level employee would just not be worth thinking about.

[happytoexplain]

No, it assumes that people should operate on principles. You're falling into the "you're naive, just accept that things are bad" philosophy, which is self-fulfilling over time.

It's ok to be angry at people for behaving in a way that is unsurprising. Otherwise, there's no room for the word "immoral".

[hug]

If I had to distill the social status & commensurate behaviour described in your in two words, it might sound suspiciously familiar.