It's obvious. What you're failing to understand in these types of companies is that if any one person above you in the chain of command disagrees with your issues and you're stopping the line, you're losing your job.
Yes. And it's all about bonuses for the higher-ups.
Back in 1993, our parent company in England insisted not only on 20% profit in a 7% industry, they insisted that each month's profit must exceed the previous, regardless of customer spending cycles and budgets.
October fell below September, but was still profitable, and was still better than the previous October. Unacceptable.
So the vice president ordered a furlough for December, to cut the payroll for that month by 10% to make up for the "loss" (the gap between actual profit and desired profit). Each dept would have furloughs to cut their payroll by 10%, regardless of manpower or need. Thus, those depts which had fewer people were furloughed for more weeks.
November turned out to be so profitable that it more than made up for its expectations and October's "gap". So the Director of Product Safety asked the VP in a staff meeting if he would cancel the furlough, since all the cash was now realized.
The VP called him a "f-- a---" in front of everyone and said that the furlough would continue as scheduled. I was out for 2 weeks, as were the rest of my dept co-workers. The company even tried to get some 'essential' people who were furloughed, to work illegally without pay in that time. They refused and their bosses let them know it would be a consideration in their next review. I had to borrow $400 from my retired dad at Christmas to pay my bills - mortgage, insurance, etc.
The VP reportedly got a $40,000 bonus on top of his salary of $250,000 (in 1993) for executing the furlough.
And the beatings were to continue until morale improved.