The second person plural was already used as "the same thing happened to us" so using "we" there would ambiguous and confusing. That is, saying "we should share responsibility" would imply that Wozniak and his wife should sharew responsibility.

I also believe "they" refers to legal responsibilities of the company as a whole, which are distinct and independent from the responsibilities of individual members. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood .

Even if you don't like corporate personhood, "they" can also refer to those people with an executive role, that is, the people who collectively made the decision. He does not have executive authority in this decision, so is not a member of that "we".

Why is "we" specifically meaning employment? Can't being a shareholder also count as "we"? That is, I can own a company, and control a company, but not be employed by the company - surely "we" still applies there.

Consider that, if Wozniak own shares of Goldman Sachs then, as shareholder, he could have a role in guiding its policies. (Ditto for Apple, of course.) But it wouldn't make sense to refer to both roles as "we", as that would make it even more confusing.