The Catholic Church in Germany had it written into LAW that they can deny its employees to unionize or strike and they can discriminate them (e.g., fire them) for their personal and religious beliefs. Oh, and did I mention that thousands of cases of sexual abuse went unpunished because the German Catholic Church made sure that they would not be prosecuted?

So, give me a break with for-profit company morale - or put differently: what is YOUR baseline to compare these actions against?

I actually never used the term "for-profit" to describe the issues, for good reason. Money is useful only insofar as it helps you gain and maintain power -- it is power and the ability to influence reality to your benefit that is the fundamental quantity being optimized in this system. Framing the power grab as fundamentally about power (is obvious, and) makes it apparent that the Catholic church in your example wanted to maintain a public reputation positive enough to continue to earn donations and devoted followers, which is why they made sure to avoid prosecution since that's usually a huge hit to one's public reputation. So your comment about "The Catholic Church in Germany had it written into LAW" aligns with my point perfectly because again they are wielding influence to improve their circumstances, independent of considerations of the consequences for others.

So to get to your question: I am not being comparative here. I am attempting to study the fundamental drives that sustain and grow corporations. I am interested in contrasting what are generally considered "human rights" (in both positive and negative senses[1]) with what ends up being encouraged and perpetuated by the actions of those corporations as singular entities. My baseline to compare the actions of corporations is versus what I would imagine a compassionate superintelligence might do. Obviously this is biased toward my own ethics/morals but I think that's ok because I generally try to reduce suffering and make things more equitable.

My baseline is basically 1) what is "affordable" for the actors which are wielding their power vs the benefits for the people whom are subject to the consequences of the decisions of those actors, and 2) what those actors actually do with the money and power at their disposal vs what they could have done to improve the material conditions of a large number of people.

Using precedent as a baseline seems stupid to me... only consider the fact that the tradition of "law" is quite young and has been continuously shaped by those in power since its inception, and so shall not be a basis for moral or ethical understanding.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

(And for context: the Catholic Church is the biggest employer in Germany - I am not talking about priests and nuns, but all the organisations and companies they run here)