[jacquesm]

It's not a matter of whether or not the paperwork is standard, the problem is that an acquisition does not normally require existing employees to sign new contracts and 'harmonizing' the relationships the company has with its employees is something they would only do if they feel their own contracts give them a more solid position on something they care about.

So this is a non-negotiable reduction in the legal position of the employees at best.

[pvg]

an acquisition does not normally require existing employees to sign new contracts

I'm not sure why you think that is true.

So this is a non-negotiable reduction in the legal position of the employees at best.

This is an extraordinary statement that requires the requisite evidence. I don't think it matches US law or precedent, it simply seeks to formalize it, while giving the other party a full and fair negotiating position.

Every single case I can think of where employer and employee/buyer got into such a spat are the ones where such agreements were not in place. Can you think of a counterexample?

[cmdrfred]

For unemployment purposes if a employer in the us changes anything about your employment involving compensation, you don't have to accept and they can only fire you and you can still collect. He can say my ip is potentially worth X million I want to be compensated, to continue to own it, or be fired.

[cactusface]

Every single time a man has abducted a child he was not in jail. Can you think of a counterexample?

[mynameisvlad]

Plenty, would you prefer those of a man who has not abducted a child and not in jail, those where a man has abducted a child and gone to jail, or those where a man has not abducted a child and gone to jail? Because all three have very many examples available.

[cactusface]

It probably would have worked better if I phrased it in the present tense. Every single time a man abducts a child he is not in jail.

[mynameisvlad]

Yep, that would work better indeed, I would not be able to think of a counterexample. :)

[ghaff]

> an acquisition does not normally require existing employees to sign new contracts

My anecdata differs. I was with a company that was acquired and I had to sign a non-compete that did not have with my previous employer. (There may have been other things as well in the contract but I don't remember.) Said acquirer, BTW, has been one of the most vocal in preventing Massachusetts from putting non-compete restrictions in place

[jacquesm]

'had to' or what?

[ghaff]

Yes. "Had to" or be terminated. As I recall, they made it pretty clear that this was not a negotiation. I'm skeptical that there would have been much wiggle room given that the company in question has been one of the most vocal opponents of the state where it's headquartered restricting non-competes through legislation. I signed because, in part, the non-compete didn't really affect me a lot because I wasn't senior enough at the time.