There is some logic to retention bonuses at failing companies. The point is not to get "you" to work as CEO of the most failing company on Earth. It is to get someone that the board thinks is competent at rescuing the company to work there. If this person has such skills, they likely can go work somewhere less screwed up and make more money and/or have a less stressful job. Hence, you need to pay them to make up for the difference. You might argue with whether the CEO is the right person or is up to the task but if you do hire someone for the job, the compensation makes sense.
As for the non-executive workers, the more likely outcome is they get fired or lose benefits. This is because the company likely needs to shed costs really quickly and the biggest cost for most companies is payroll. This asymmetry of outcomes is stark and, quite frankly, sucks but the math checks out. Companies exist to create value and they will do what is needed to continue doing that. Compensation is not about fairness or putting food on the table. It is about what is required to help the company continue creating value.
The takeaway is to always have a sober assessment of your position. Take a look at the chessboard and figure out if you are a Queen or a pawn. Once you know where you stand, act accordingly.