Yes, if the 350 employees kept working the same as usual, and the only thing that changed was something the CEO did, not anything he ordered the employees to do.
Why that restriction? Deciding the direction employees work in is part of the CEO's job. If he directed them badly (say, to work on a project that fails because he misjudged the market), the company would make less money and it would be the CEO's fault.
Why should the employee with the CEO title get a raise for increasing company profits, while the employees without the CEO title do not get a raise for increasing company profits?
> the company would make less money and it would be the CEO's fault.
It would be the CEO's fault, and the workers who were not at fault would be fired when the company needs to tighten the belt.
