The issue which first brought about this concept was about a corporate voice weighing in on a decision to give that same corporation further local real property tax abatements for local expansion. Being a beneficiary of a local tax break was and remains the decision against redaction of that corporate voice. Employees were never considered part of the corporate voice. Management and investors were defined as the participants of the corporate voice. However, job security and new job opportunities were certainly a concern for employees who likely did want the corporate investment to remain local and hopefully expand. Job security matters.
We often see local tax authorities putting tax abatement programs into effect for corporations as an inducement to expand within their jurisdictions, and later for maintaining and further expansion of local investment. Forcing redaction of the corporate voice as a taxpayer is the basis of the final decision. It is popular to criticize corporations as enemies of the people, Frank and Jesse James vs the evil railroads. Yet Frank and Jesse were thieves and murderers, the railroads making for highways where our waterways didn't travel, creating expansion of population, regional access to larger markets for farmers, cattlemen, shepherds, miners, loggers and so forth. I voted for Casey Jones.
I don't think you understand the difference between personhood and personalty for this concept recognized by the court. Personalty is what you own, inclusive of liabilities. Taxes are a liability. You are confusing worker's rights with the political rights of other legal entities when it is questions like taxation being addressed. Workers' rights are a distinct issue. Our nation was partially founded upon principles of personalty. No taxation without representation was a rallying cry. That is the constitutional issue that was addressed, not worker rights.
Let's get back to the issue raised by the OP, packing the court politically. We have sufficient evidence based on prior Scotus decisions, to know it fails. Lawyers will be lawyers, whether practicing in general practice or on the bench. They tend act within the framework of the law, not political emotions.