3 ms·

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. Th

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.

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.