It’s [sic] funding details aren’t public,

There are some things even a radically transparent company can’t do.

What they won’t accept is perceived hypocrisy: A brand that fails to walk its own talk, especially when times get tough.

Trying to appeal to people who do not understand business stops working when you have to do something that people who don’t understand business need to understand. I see no ethical obligation of a company to pay temporarily unproductive employees, or to have enough OPM on hand to do so. But it may be strategically necessary for a company like Everlane to do some otherwise stupid things in furtherance of its “mission” as perceived by its fans.

What does union-busting have to do with transparency? If transparency is the mission, the numbers should reveal why the labor actions were necessary. Either the transparency wasn’t real, or the mission statement was misinterpreted as nothing more than “Do no evil,” making anything the company does that progressives don’t like “hypocrisy.” Did the company ever say it wouldn’t play to win? As best I can make out from this article, it just said it would show its work. (I don’t know anything about this company in the real world; I’m talking about the one described in the article.)