>"Please stop demonizing companies and recognize that companies are made up of employees. This very well could be a life or death situation for a company's employee."
I'm not demonising all companies, it's possible to run a company with an ethical focus, so it is possible to put people or the environment over pure profits. However, companies that would put pure profits over people will not get my sympathy.
As for life or death for a company's employees, that's one of the benefits of social security, you can remove undesirable economic activity without jeopardising the lives of the people linked to that economic activity. So basically in a well run country, it isn't really a matter of life and death to stop a company from trading in your country.
On the other hand, it can be a matter of life and death if profit is put over people. The El Salvador gold mining story I linked to is one example of that, I have plenty of other examples if you're interested.
>"Where does the ultimate power of the electorate end? Does the will of the people override your ability to travel to another state for better work or pay because you're needed desperately at your current locale?"
The rights of the majority vs. the rights of the minority is one of the classic debates around what is important in a democracy. There's a need for a balancing act between the two.
However, when it comes to the rights of the majority vs. the rights of a corporation to make money, the answer is much more clear cut. What we're talking about in this case is the laws we set to give the people the society they want, as well as (in our current society) the bounds that set what a company can and can't do. If a company relies on a certain law being the way it is to make money, and then the law changes, then the company either has to adapt or fold or convince people to change the law.