Using your analogy, this is Alice bought a cheap stretch of land in the middle of nowhere, and wanted to develop it, but she couldn't afford to pay Bob to develop it. Alice then offers to pay Bob a smaller portion of money and some of her land in exchange for developing it. Bob has other clients looking to pay him more money, but he decides to take Alice's contract because he wants the land.
Why is Bob not in the same situation? They both are taking a financial loss in the hopes of having more valuable land to sell. Why shouldn't Bob have the same right to sell his portion of the land that Alice has?
There's a moral justification, and a desire to change the social norm, versus the terms of an agreement. This is where educational articles like this are important to improve the understanding throughout the industry so that employees can make informed choices.
>>Why is Bob not in the same situation?
In this specific circumstance, Bob agreed to an arrangement that contractually doesn't put him in the same situation. Hopefully Bob will learn from this experience and, if possible, negotiate better (or equivalent rights) instead of willingly agreeing to unequal rights.
Pragmatically, unless and until more workers are willing to take the risk to become founders themselves, the balance of power usually is in the founders' and investors' favour (i.e. capital).
Why is Bob not in the same situation? They both are taking a financial loss in the hopes of having more valuable land to sell. Why shouldn't Bob have the same right to sell his portion of the land that Alice has?