3 ms·

I really don't get or condone the use of the term "poach" here. Company A has great employees, can't pay them according to their value. Company B comes along an

by Jacqued 11y ago

I really don't get or condone the use of the term "poach" here. Company A has great employees, can't pay them according to their value. Company B comes along and does pay them that, they leave. How is this not the best possible outcome ? Company A was not competitive and disappears, employees are better paid, Company B gets some great employees. Or are engineers considered property now ? > Apple never tried to acquire Mission Motors, Kaufman said. Well why would they ? There's no need to pay off the investors and executives when you just want to hire some engineers, unless said executives did their job well enough that said engineers don't want to leave. When Musk was talking about engineers Apple was "poaching", it did not reflect very well on him either in my opinion.

MatekCopatek 11y ago
In this case I would agree with you, since this company and its product wasn't competition for Apple. They simply hired some people and a company failed because those people left. But when done to a direct competitor, the intention isn't always just to get a good employee and pay him what he deserves, it's also to weaken the other company or to acquire important knowledge/knowhow. In that case, poaching doesn't sound that bad.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Why does that matter? Humans are free to choose where they work. If somebody makes a better offer why should we condemn it just because they want to cause trouble for your current employer too? This language around "poaching" is just another way that companies try to protect each other at our expense. Us engineers should be rejoicing when companies want to make great offers to hire us away, not condemning it.
- awakeasleep 11y ago
  The word poaching means to illegally hunt game that is not one's own. In medieval Europe, the king was the only person allowed to hunt in the king's forest. The animals in that forest were the king's property. By using the word "poach" you're saying the engineers are the property of the company they work for, and someone else is unjustly taking that property. Employees are not property. They are people with the right to move between companies as they please. Even if they were hired to hurt the original company, it wouldn't be taking that company's property unjustly. You could call that a sabotage hire or a betrayal, but call it a word that deals with people as free to make choices using their own agency.
  - Consultant32452 11y ago
    Depending on how it's done it could be viewed as anti-competitive. To give an exaggerated example, imagine if Apple, using its big pile of phone money, came into your company and offered 10x market rate for every company willing to leave that day with a guarantee of 3 years of employment at that rate. In my opinion that should trigger anti-competitive laws. And if that's true, then we're just talking about to what degree this type of behavior is allowed before it crosses the line. It doesn't sound like any lines were crossed to me in this case, I just thought it was an interesting thought experiment.
    - ctime 11y ago
      Big fan of capitalism, that is exactly within the boundaries of why the system works, because in practice this should not happen (shareholders would not approve), yet if it did, the winners are the engineers either way.
      - Consultant32452 11y ago
        I don't understand how having safeguards against anti-competitive behavior is in any way anti-capitalist. To say the engineers are the winners is very short sighted. The best scenario for all engineers on the market is to have multiple competitors competing for the best engineers with good salaries. It's not to have one of the vendors take a temporary loss in profitability in order to put everyone else out of business.
- reissbaker 11y ago
  If the company currently employing the employee is weakened more by that person leaving than they would've been by paying them enough to stay, it's just bad business to have paid any less. You don't own your employees: they're free to leave for better offers at any time. Giving a better offer is just part of running a business and making deals, not "poaching." I can't feel sorry for companies that underpay and then get harmed for it; it's dumb and they deserve to lose.

by Jacqued 11y ago

MatekCopatek 11y ago

In this case I would agree with you, since this company and its product wasn't competition for Apple. They simply hired some people and a company failed because those people left. But when done to a direct competitor, the intention isn't always just to get a good employee and pay him what he deserves, it's also to weaken the other company or to acquire important knowledge/knowhow. In that case, poaching doesn't sound that bad.

mikeash 11y ago
Why does that matter? Humans are free to choose where they work. If somebody makes a better offer why should we condemn it just because they want to cause trouble for your current employer too? This language around "poaching" is just another way that companies try to protect each other at our expense. Us engineers should be rejoicing when companies want to make great offers to hire us away, not condemning it.
awakeasleep 11y ago
The word poaching means to illegally hunt game that is not one's own. In medieval Europe, the king was the only person allowed to hunt in the king's forest. The animals in that forest were the king's property. By using the word "poach" you're saying the engineers are the property of the company they work for, and someone else is unjustly taking that property. Employees are not property. They are people with the right to move between companies as they please. Even if they were hired to hurt the original company, it wouldn't be taking that company's property unjustly. You could call that a sabotage hire or a betrayal, but call it a word that deals with people as free to make choices using their own agency.
- Consultant32452 11y ago
  Depending on how it's done it could be viewed as anti-competitive. To give an exaggerated example, imagine if Apple, using its big pile of phone money, came into your company and offered 10x market rate for every company willing to leave that day with a guarantee of 3 years of employment at that rate. In my opinion that should trigger anti-competitive laws. And if that's true, then we're just talking about to what degree this type of behavior is allowed before it crosses the line. It doesn't sound like any lines were crossed to me in this case, I just thought it was an interesting thought experiment.
  - ctime 11y ago
    Big fan of capitalism, that is exactly within the boundaries of why the system works, because in practice this should not happen (shareholders would not approve), yet if it did, the winners are the engineers either way.
    - Consultant32452 11y ago
      I don't understand how having safeguards against anti-competitive behavior is in any way anti-capitalist. To say the engineers are the winners is very short sighted. The best scenario for all engineers on the market is to have multiple competitors competing for the best engineers with good salaries. It's not to have one of the vendors take a temporary loss in profitability in order to put everyone else out of business.
reissbaker 11y ago
If the company currently employing the employee is weakened more by that person leaving than they would've been by paying them enough to stay, it's just bad business to have paid any less. You don't own your employees: they're free to leave for better offers at any time. Giving a better offer is just part of running a business and making deals, not "poaching." I can't feel sorry for companies that underpay and then get harmed for it; it's dumb and they deserve to lose.