I think you are the one not understanding the situation. As you point out, amazon is a "profit-seeking machine". It makes perfect sense that they would not want unions. The wife-beating husband also is not going to want his wife to meet with a divorce attorneys and is certainly not going to take the initiative of hiring one for her.
Yeah it makes sense they don't want unions, but that's not the point of it. Anti-union behavior is still mostly illegal, isn't it?
There's a difference between expecting companies to help unions vs actively engage in shady behavior to avoid them.
In this case, we're describing what I consider a loophole, but it's still wrong (even putting aside the morality of it).
OP said the framing was weird, but expecting companies to not be that shitty is perfectly normal in my view. After all, we sometimes forget that at some point a human decided this was the right move.
The alternative is to normalize it and assume every company is the shittiest possible. On second thought that might be a lot closer to reality though.
