I'm going to go out on a limb and hazard a guess that this is a simplification of a more complex story about Ben and Jerry's in order to make a point about trying to constrain executive compensation.
Your correct from that standpoint that all stories are simplifications of more complex realities. That said, Ben & Jerry's is used as a textbook example of the effects of untended consequences when attempting to artificially manipulate cost structures in a market economy. It is even arguable, these consequences directly caused Ben and Jerry to loose control of their own company.
All that aside, I don't have a problem with curtailing executive compensation (for example CostCo does it in a way that maintains their corporate identity while allowing them to compete in their market.)
