I can accept you may have had to make some unpopular changes, but I would assume those decisions were sound and were implemented to increase productivity and not capriciously created simply to exert authority. On the same token, were you open minded and flexible enough to reconsider some decisions if they increased employee morale while having no negative effect on employee output?
While it might be your business, the employees are your partners, as you know, decent pay and benefits are only part of the equation. It's the little things - perks that seem trivial or the feeling that I, as an employee, have some input in the decision-making process - that garners good will between employee and employer.
for a company that small >50 employees, that is true to some extent. granted you don't want to be a slave driver, but at the same time, work is work. i never intended to create a hostile work environment, but at the end of the day, it is i that is taking ALL of the financial risk. if i had lost half of my employees, so be it, they obviously weren't getting the job done efficiently in the first place.
in my second example, the corporation i worked for employed 27,000 people. my division alone had 6k+. there may have been a survey sent out regarding some policy changes, but like i said, some of that stuff is decided in the board room where even i was not a part of the discussion. my point is that if a decision has been made, for whatever reason, whether perceive as invalid or necessary, it's a done deal. there's no sense complaining about it. accept and move on or get a new job if it's that serious.
my other point is that there seems to be a lot of support of the OP in this thread. surely, this can be a great social topic and we can agree to disagree, but i'm guessing that all the replies (mine included) have little or no bearing on her particular situation.