he's taking money from each and every taxpayer by having the government subsidize his employees.
Please don't make up your own definition of "subsidy." A subsidy is a payment that allows an unprofitable enterprise to continue operating. Very few companies receive subsidies. Amtrak is one of the rare compaines that does. Amtrak has never paid taxes, because it has never had any profits on which taxes could be assessed. McDonalds has certainly not received subsidies. If a government chooses to create an entitlement program that benefits the low-income employees of company X, it doesn't mean that company X has been subsidized.
Now, those entitlements create a marginally higher standard of living for the employees of company X, which makes them marginally less likely to go on strike or otherwise demand higher wages. That makes for a valid argument against entitlement programs: they shield employers from some of the blowback that goes with paying low wages. Still, companies that make a net positive contribution to the Treasury in no way meet the definition of "subsidized."
I've heard some people make the false claim -- mostly regarding oil companies -- that "a tax reduction is the same thing as a subsidy." No, it's not. To be consistent, these people would also have to claim that "a subsidy reduction is the same thing as a tax."
Amtrak experienced a subsidy reduction a few years ago (it got $1,555 million in FY2010, and $1,475 million in FY2011). Does that mean Amtrak paid tax? No, not by any stretch of the imagination. A subsidy reduction is not a tax, and a tax reduction is not a subsidy.