Not saying you have to be a robot (I've been emotional about all of my comments in this thread), but there is a point at which emotional logic in an argument clouds the true purpose of the argument.

In this case, the purpose was to criticize the company and its leadership - there's nothing wrong with that, but mapping a projected idea of "unfairness" into the criticism (unless unfairness actually HAPPENED to you within the context of the subject being criticized) then you're clouding the soundness of the criticism.

I agree. I should have posted a fair criticism and a plan to change it.

I think what I believe is unfair is how executives are unfairly rewarded regardless of company performance in a lot of cases because the company has signed a contract that basically indemnifies them of all responsibility. Now don't get me wrong, these contracts are necessary to protect all involved, but I feel that there should be no reward for failure. Yes, let the executive walk with something, because they stepped up and took a chance. But do not give them so much it's practically a reward for failure.

I'll have to think over how to fix the rest and try to provide some insights in the future. My goal would be to make the situation more fair to all involved and acknowledge that even though employees haven't put millions up they have in fact put their livelihood on the line.