Nice strawman. It would go more like this:

Designers, marketers, janitors, managers, accountants, executives, 2d artists that really want to be 3D artists: Hey, 3D art would be more profitable than continuing our 2D art division. Let's vote on whether we should continue our 2D or move to 3D.

2D artists that want to continue being 2D artists: If we move to 3D art, then we will lose our jobs. We will not vote yes on this without receiving a fair exit package.

Worker's Union: Well, since we all voted on fair severance packages upon the creation of the union, you will be fully paid for a year after termination if we vote to move to 3D. Also, if you do end up choosing to become 3D artists, we will give you hiring priority over newcomers.

Then they all vote and abide by the outcome. If moving to 3D would be profitable enough to warrant voting out the 2D art faction but at the cost of giving them a fair severance package, then the vote will pass. Whereas, if it would simply be better to continue specializing in 2D art to develop a comparative advantage in a field that will still exist, even if it diminishes a bit, then the vote will not pass.

Hmmm, weird. This sounds slightly familiar. Market forces dictating whether people make a decision or not? It's almost like some sort of force pushing one way or another. Perhaps like some sort of "unsee-able foot" or something.

Don't worry. It's not surprising that you have no fucking clue how democracy works. Most living people don't. It does require a great deal of education to understand, after all.

Lol. Jesus Christ. Imagine reading what I said and thinking that it boils down to "management vs 2D artists." Holy fuck. I literally said, "from the lowest janitor to the highest executive." If you can form a majority coalition against a single faction of a corporation to make something happen, then, WARNING: CRAZY IDEA INCOMING, maybe you DON'T FUCKING DO IT.