It's like complaining that people aren't loyal to Wal-Mart, or loyal to Amazon, or Apple. Or why aren't people "loyal" to the bank foreclosing on them?
There doesn't need to be any animosity, but the idea that people should somehow be beholden to the person on the other end of the transaction is irrational.
For example in Japan, companies actually go out of their way to do things for you outside of your work, like find you a significant other.
If a company actually did things for me to try to keep me happy and treated me well, I think I would feel some sense of loyalty too. Unfortunately it seems hard to find these kinds of companies nowadays.
This behavior also makes sense from an economic perspective: It's much harder to find new personal and train them to work with your team and technology than bridging the gap for a while and taking profit cuts, especially for smaller companies with less marketing/hiring power.
There are actually state-controlled instruments that support this: Kurzarbeit (where everybody gets to work less and the state pays a subsidy) and similar support.
Big companies (public or private) have evolved beyond that and are more of a system than a person.
And it's not just employees that are loyal; I've know of many companies that go above and beyond for their employees when they need it. I definitely know companies that keep around long-term employees out of a sense of loyalty when younger employees would be both cheaper and more productive.
It's not completely black and white.
After spending my time in the Marine Corps, where I was basically a slave, I know I will never allow anyone to take advantage of me that much, as I have too much self respect and realize the difference in the contracts.
My tactic is this: I imagine what would a CEO of a fortune 100 do during the employment process? It really makes a difference in how you negotiate things. Also, never forget the power of a good negotiation. (eg: schedule extended time off starting the day of an annual review, and the last thing in the review say you will not be coming back unless some reasonable balance of your demands is made.) The more you value yourself the more others will be willing to value you for too.
That depends. If company positions itself as "money for the sake of money", then you are right - being loyal to such idea is weird. But some for instance are interested in advancing other goals (example: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/). Does it make sense to be loyal to such goals? I'd say yes.
For instance, in recent years, in the US, we've taken a hard stance that interns who perform essential job functions - which basically all interns do - must be paid. Should this requirement be relaxed for a non-profit? How does the way I feel about that change if I'm a donor to that non-profit? I care about the mission, but I also care how we get there.
I'm fairly sure that internal to Mozilla, Wikimedia, ahem the Association for Computing Machinery (promoting computing as a science AND a profession!), and any other non-profit corporation you can find a lot of the same internal struggles that employees everywhere face.
Further, you have a leadership team who believes it's OK to pay people below market because they "love" and "are loyal to" their job.
It works for a lot of people, and I know / have known a lot of folks very happy with such choices, but it can be a dangerous alleyway to wander down as well.
Other than that - I agree and fully support fair compensation for work.
My point was less aimed at Mozilla itself than in general at companies / non-profits with a community-oriented mission. At some point, they still have to balance the books.
I'm not sure how to keep a company pure short of controlling 100% interest, and I'm increasingly thinking that there is no way to do it. As soon as you let external shareholders in, you are beholden to their ideas of what the company should be doing. And the vast majority of the time, that thing is making "money for the sake of money", because that's the only reason the shareholders are putting up their capital in the first place.