The point is these people need to find that fulfilling work somewhere else if they object to what their current employer requires them to do. "Ideological purity" and morals are not shared by everyone equally... and if Netflix were to comply with these fringe employee demands, they would lose subscribers who want to watch, for example, the Chappelle special and more.
Netflix isn't a church group... it's a for-profit organization that will always try to give it's customers what they want, despite what some crusading employees think.
It just looks better to blame the employees than the managers and owners that theyve lost access to the content that subscribers want
It sounds like you are in favor of that, but then your first two examples (Amazon vs the Caymans) are confusing - what is so palpably evil about the latter? Also, surely most giant corporations are not legally in the Cayman islands, but Delaware, right?
"Legal" doesn't necessarily imply "ethical" -- interracial and homosexual relationships come to mind, both of which were illegal within recent memory. Thus, it's not enough that megacorps seeking tax havens "follow the law" when they have such resources as to ensure the law comports to their desires. It seems "proportionate" to want those with disproportionate power to have a little less...
>Also, surely most giant corporations are not legally in the Cayman islands, but Delaware, right?
Ugland House [0] is the building I'm describing. Despite being five stories tall, it's the registered office address for 40,000 US firms. You're certainly not wrong to invoke Delaware, whose Corporation Trust Center [1], a "suburban law firm"-looking building of modest size, sports seven times the number of fake corporate headquarters as does Ugland House. I'm given to understand that there are various benefits to the Caymans' regulatory environment, and those that don't have to be on US soil tend to prefer it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugland_House
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_Trust_Center_(CT_C...
Just because there's no ethical consumption under capitalism doesn't mean that helping Amazon union-busters agitate against bathroom breaks or smoothing the way for dozens of gigantic corporations to "headquarter" themselves in a single building in the Caymans, is somehow equivalent to working at an urbanist NGO despite owning a car or owning a computer whose assembly or constituent resources depended on child slavery (this is all of them, by the way).
It's true that none of us are "innocent", but one doesn't have to be part of the problem to make any money. Many of the conceivable blameworthy activities most of us engage in aren't really personally mediated -- I have to drive a car occasionally, but I've lived in places sporting thoughtful infrastructure that supported lifestyles in which cars were unnecessary. Having to choose to use one, and burn gas -- gasp! -- isn't a "personal choice" for most people, it's a structural consequence of the world in which they find themselves. British Petroleum invented the concept of the carbon footprint, in part to help prevent people from realizing this.