Is the implication here stock options are only offered to labor when its in a weak bargaining position because otherwise they could be demanding something more valuable?
When a direct relationship exists between the parties, this is a possibility. When there is a third party dictating what happens, this is much less realistic.
> [...] because otherwise they could be demanding something more valuable?
Like twice as many stock options? I'm a bit confused. Stock options are fungible. You can make granting of stock options worth arbitrary many dollars, by eg increasing the volume or lowering the strike price etc.