I don't see how "we weren't given equity but now they sold" is an issue. It doesn't change anything about your past payout. Yes, you would have been better of had you gotten equity, but you probably would have given up salary for that. Apparently you found the "no equity" deal acceptable.
Why does being sold make the old compensation scheme unfair all of a sudden. Its not like employees have a right to equity. It is somewhat standard, but here it was clear enough ahead of time that there would be no equity. The given reason for why they do not offer equity turned out to be wrong. But why does the reason you did not get equity matters? Would a different reason for not giving equity have changed whether you had accepted the job?
But the "no equity" deal was valued as acceptable because the equity was positioned as worthless in the "never sell" world. If employees had known there would be a sale and they'd never see a cent from it, they may have valued the offer differently.
I don't see how "we weren't given equity but now they sold" is an issue. It doesn't change anything about your past payout. Yes, you would have been better of had you gotten equity, but you probably would have given up salary for that. Apparently you found the "no equity" deal acceptable.
Why does being sold make the old compensation scheme unfair all of a sudden. Its not like employees have a right to equity. It is somewhat standard, but here it was clear enough ahead of time that there would be no equity. The given reason for why they do not offer equity turned out to be wrong. But why does the reason you did not get equity matters? Would a different reason for not giving equity have changed whether you had accepted the job?