Consider a case where let's say the founder of an extremely successful yet 50 person software company sells the company for an ungodly sum ($250mil+) to Corporation X but as a part of that deal this founder doesn't provide any equity to 80% of his/her employees who helped build the company?
What should they do then?
In a perfect world, where the government doesn't restrain the company from firing everyone and hiring new employees, I'm fine with it. I wouldn't want to participate, but I see no reason why it would be a unfair.
> Consider a case where let's say the founder of an extremely successful yet 50 person software company sells the company for an ungodly sum ($250mil+) to Corporation X but as a part of that deal this founder doesn't provide any equity to 80% of his/her employees who helped build the company?
> What should they do then?
Either continue working for the new owners or find employment elsewhere.
If employees wanted equity, then they should have negotiated that as part of their terms of employment.
Call collective bargaining what it is, state-sanctioned extortion. "Give us X or we'll walk out. No, you can't hire a replacement either." Imagine if your auto mechanic or doctor or plumber could to this to you.
Not that it isn't necessarily justified; seeing the working conditions at, for example, Amazon's warehouses improved more than warrants it. But let's not pretend it's something it's not.
>...this founder doesn't provide any equity to 80% of his/her employees who helped build the company? What should they do then?
A talented, highly educated workforce of developers somehow collectively failed to read their employment contracts and understand the risks/rewards of their compensation? What they should all do is smack themselves on the forehead.