[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. :)