As long as the compensation of any of the workers didn’t depend on the financial success of the movie does it really matter?

Compensation construed broadly includes future work based on your portfolio. If one did stellar work that otherwise would have yielded future opportunities had the work not been shuttered then the answer is "Yes."

A movie doesn't need to be released for the crew to get credits.

It does to count as credits to the most important group: the audiences.

Absolutely. What does the financial aspect of this have to do with anything? A movie created and never viewed is a cost to society with no benefit.

Yes. A lot of the work could have been badly paid but great for one's portfolio.

But Netflix owns it, and likely doesn't see it as a profitable thing to release it.

Actually copyright is given to producers to incentivize them to produce and disseminate creative works. If copyright law is not functioning as intended, we have a moral imperative to abolish it.

It's the thing nowadays. Some person allegedly does something wrong and movies and books get pulled off the shelves robbing us of the opportunity to see sometimes great pieces of writing or art.

Also see Kevin Spacey. Book burning anyone?

I was ready to agree with you but Kevin Spacey was a really bad example.

Kevin Spacey is a tremendous actor and we all had a lousy close for fans of "House of Cards".

One bad example makes my statement incorrect? Even one of the online magazines or newspapers had an article stating the same as I just a few days ago. So I'm wrong?

Here is a bad example but Ted Danson did black face at a party about 20 years ago. I presume he will now lose his TV job and be banned from Hollywood while all episodes of "Cheers" get pulled. I am shocked this hasn't happened already.