The description is about punishment for dissent from non-influential EAs, but the title is about influential members. (And I'd vote differently depending on which is intended.)

Fit is an important aspect of hiring! (As are diversity, etc.) Picking the person who gets the highest score on the trial, while ignoring how they fit with the team, is a huge problem.

The description seems fine, but the title seems to get this wrong by referencing fit instead of nepotism or similar.

I imagine that there would be willingness to do a matching-raised-funds program, where the company pledges to match funds that employees have pledged to charities. For example, someone chooses to do a 10k run for a charity and gets friends and family to pledge to the charity, or chooses to do a birthday fundraiser in lieu of presents. This seems like it would qualify for the bounty, and the framing seems less weird than what you proposed, even though it's essentially identical.

This is bad, good work pointing it out.

But critically, what is far worse than this is every other company which neither admits the risks, nor bothers to have any reasonable mitigations. And it is very important that this is made clear!

wondering whether the fan really draws all the air through the filters

It doesn't need to. If only 90% goes through each time, it's incredibly effective, since it's getting through all the air in the room many times each hour.

I'd do that, but for $1000 / $2000.

Median, above 6%, but I'd take a bet with reasonable odds for >8% before end of 2027.

I'd certainly bet on higher US unemployment by 2027, in part due to AI automation.

Now, if you own a house, you can demand that other people obey you or leave your house. But the state does not own the country; no one does. 

By what authority does such ownership exist? Because at some point, we're arguing over which social structures (ownership, government, negative rights) are good or bad, and I don't see much justification to draw the line where you choose to.

Other answers are very much on point, but I want to flag a point others are not focused on.

While I’m currently living with my parents and paying $700 per month in rent, I’ve been thinking seriously about saving more aggressively now that I'm just starting my career.

You should absolutely be doing this, and it should be a focus. I don't think it's a reason not to donate, but this has been discussed several times before.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ZXQ53du9sBjLZs5XB/how-to-balance-personal-savings-and-giving

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/psvQMXEgQsT5RMDTu/consider-financial-independence-first

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/w9ENDad268PT9KnWn/thoughts-on-personal-finance-for-effective-altruists 

And on donating now vs. later,

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7uJcBNZhinomKtH9p/giving-now-vs-later-a-summary