> Companies primary goal is to exploit /everything/, and why wouldn't workers be included/

Yeah, but this isn't true as a blanket statement. Sure, most companies want to be profitable, and I agree "being profitable" is inherently exploitative. However, companies also generally produce useful products, the demand for which is often the primary driver of said profitability (i.e. economies of scale). So, it must be true that companies can often (and frequently do) have a different primary goal: "make a thing which has high enough demand for us to become profitable".

So assuming every company is out to exploit their workers is both narrow-minded and pretty obviously untrue, when given a little thought. It also turns out happier employees make better things--else, why would we constantly have people pushing for better working conditions? Some companies, by definition must meet some minimum bar of providing for their employees. This is often dictated by law, otherwise they will eventually be stripped away in search of "efficiency" (i.e. "profit margins"). However, this is strictly not true of many companies. Many companies go above and beyond the bare minimum when it comes to benefits for their employees.

I know these things because I have experienced them firsthand. I am not the only one who has done so, either, so clearly not all companies are actually exploiting their workers to the same degree. I would even go so far as to point out that some companies do their best to not exploit their workers. Even if this is purely done to differentiate the company from its competition, and serves to attract good employees, this is still a benefit to the employees of said company.

So I pretty soundly reject your hypothesis that all companies' primary goal is to "exploit everything". Not every company is an evil megacorp, and portraying them all as such does no service to the companies that are actually working hard to not be an evil megacorp.

I think the problem is that exploit can mean multiple things, and it’s obviously true that companies want to exploit everything in the non-pejorative sense.

The problem is transforming the word’s meaning in the next sentence to imply they use the resource/personnel unfairly, which is demonstrably untrue as you point out (though it’s certainly the case that for some companies both meanings apply)

This is a good insight, thanks for adding it!