I think their more general point still stands, though; why would you expect a company trying to "sell" their employees to negotiate in the employees' best interests rather than that of the company itself?
That’s why in football there are 3 parties to a transfer deal: the two clubs and the player’s agent.
In a regular company trying to sell a whole chunk of workers, that should probably be a union. Which is indeed what happens in many European countries when this sort of thing happens.
I wouldn't... but I would expect the company trying to "buy" the employees to act at least partly in their interests - otherwise the new employees will soon become ex-employees!
Most aquihires are "take it" or "you're all unemployed." Since some money > no money the aquihire is inherently a benefit to the employee. You still have the option of not taking it and being unemployed. Or taking it and then looking for a new job. But you have more options and more income than if it didn't happen.
An acquihire is also a solid opportunity to end your participation on the team. It's perfectly acceptable to stop working somewhere after only a month because the company got acquired. For similar reasons if the acquiring company presents you with a contract (I think there was an article about this, a noncompete?) they want you to sign as a condition of continued employment, it's very different than if they presented you with that contract as a condition of hiring you normally.
