In what way you would think this is a good example is confusing? His staff seem to be openly mocking his response by forwarding his emails to the press.
This is a difficult position for companies in the modern day, many employees have taken a stance and are trying to bring social issues into work. I think what the CEO is alluding to, is this, that while the company is open to understanding these issues and understanding employees concerns, the role of the company is to make money.
You see it in the article, stating that layoffs lead to staff being demoralized, well guess what, if you keep losing ground because staff are focused on bringing outside issues into the office, then layoffs could be somewhat seen as a response to the losses the company is making.
While some tend to make moves towards to the extremes, the company seems to be trying to find a balance, supporting issues and having programs in place, while trying not alienate some of it's customers.
So new relic supports the Movement. But fuck the employees that actually believe them and try to further the change. It's only OK if the employer exploits a current social movement. I see you buddy.
Why? What's wrong with employees wanting some ownership of and control over the fruits of their labour?
Personally, I believe the reckoning that Tech is now facing is a direct result of decades of ethically-bankrupt profit-chasing and the cults of personality that certain CEOs nurtured and their fans exacerbated.
I think a little humility, particularly in the upper echelons of the tech sector, is past due.
Because it is a public company and their purpose is to make the investors money not cater to the "activist" cause-du-jour.