[jack-r-abbit]

But you always have a choice. Nobody can force you to be acquired... that would be slavery. The seller can require as part of the deal the buyer offer to keep a certain amount of people at a certain pay. Buyer can accept that deal or negotiate. But at the end of the day, every employee has a choice to sign the new contract or not. So anyone who got "locked up" in a 2-4 year contract did so because they felt it was a good move for them (or at least better than not having a job).

[thezilch]

It's a silly "choice;" employees shouldn't be treated with handcuffs. You should be offering them a clear incentive to NOT leave with the cash.

Unfortunately, a lot of developers going to work for a startup have a starry-eyed perspective that the 80hr week is going to pay itself back in droves and without the golden handcuffs. Then reality sets in; the seller doesn't necessarily think much about his employee's outlook -- "dude, you get to work for Yahoo!!!!"

Employees of startups need to be reminded to not take cuts, because the buyout should be gravy; it will likely never come or come with a heavy ball-n-chain.

[hga]

Indeed. But I'm pretty sure they got a "sign this soon or leave" offer than many chose not to refuse.

[mikeash]

Even then, they can leave Yahoo at any time if they change their minds. They'll just lose out on their big payday.

[hga]

Outside of California they might be ... hindered by non-competes. I was once in this position: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6148918 and one of the many reasons I didn't accept the offer was that non-competes were enforceable in my state, the contact had a nasty one, and the acquiring company did business with so many of the area's organizations that I would have been seriously disadvantaged when it came time to separate.

[mikeash]

Yuck. Fortunately, both companies in this case are in California.