I don't think the article was disputing the original work contracts or implying that any part of the contracts were illegal or deceptive. Instead, the programmers mentioned in the article were upset because they became aware of just how valuable their work and knowledge can be. Those past high frequency trading work contracts are over and done with, but that doesn't mean the programmers need to take the same terms for future work. In fact, with some investment of their own, they may be able to supplant some of the established trading house market with their own startups and actually receive the fruits of their labor. What a concept!

Wealth is all about percentages and the standard profit percentage share for professionals and engineers, "big-corp" or otherwise, is 0%. These programmers left to start their own trading companies, likely because the salary bumps being offered (a measly $45,000 extra on $150,000 base salary, in the example) were insulting compared to the revenue being generated directly from their work. That's demonstrable value. Consider: a 1% profit share from the example in the article would be over $300,000 per year. Not a large bonus at all for a financial managers or executive, but not an outlandish bonus for a highly valuable member of a lucrative enterprise, either.

Your last paragraph sounds a lot like, "keep your head down and be thankful you have a job." I assume you're just defending the status-quo and pointing out the tradeoff between sharing the risk/reward and being comfortably salaried. You can't possibly be implying that programmers or other skilled professionals shouldn't even try to negotiate better contracts, right?