There is a big difference between being a shareholder and employee/shareholder. All a shareholder is concerned with is share price. An employee/shareholder cares about share price, but just as important is the long-term health of the company. And share price can be manipulated in the short term and the expense of the long term. A shareholder can leave anytime he/she wants. A shareholder/employee doesn't realistically have that option--outside of retirement--and thus, places long term growth ahead of quarterly growth.
If you own a house with walls of gold, and you have some partners who have an outside stake in the house, they want you to start knocking walls down and selling gold. They don't live there, so what do they care? They want the cash NOW. You? You're not so sure you want to mess with the foundation. You'd rather just chip away here and there to build more walls, adding more and more value to your house. If you cash out some walls, you'll have more immediate cash, but at the expense of the overall size of your house.
Crude analogy, yes, but it still shows why A shares should have much, MUCH stronger voting rights than B shares.
If all shares are equal, you can bet work conditions will NOT be the same way in the future. And I would like to see the studies you are referring to showing the reduced demand and lower share price. Please provide a link.