5 ms·

As an aside, the use of the term "poaching" always bugged me. It implies that an employee is owned by a company like some deer in the King's forest.

elcct 11y ago
This term was created by companies paying low salaries and being puzzled that employees are going to companies that pay more.
- mizchief2 11y ago
  I had a manager that would get red-faced mad when talking about people the company would pay to go get some certification, and couldn't understand that "loyalty" wasn't enough to prevent that person from taking a higher paying job that the certification earned.
eitally 11y ago
Not really. It originated to describe high level employees who take a job and then exploit their personal network to hire away friends. This is super-common and expected, and is also the reason non-competes became popular. It wasn't until later, the tech boom, that "poaching" was repurposed to be more generalized luring of high potential employees from wherever using whatever ($, perks) means available.
- chrisbennet 11y ago
  An that use of the term "poaching" [high level employee hiring away friends] originated with the earlier/original meaning of the term i.e. "hunting animals illegally". The deer (for example) were the property of the King - Robin Hood was a poacher.
- TheCowboy 11y ago
  The idea that they need non-competes to retain talent should still set off some alarms that maybe companies aren't paying market rate salaries. Most people don't leave a company for less money and no other benefits, and there's nothing wrong with employees being lured away for more pay. That's how it's supposed to work.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  I always thought the scenario they meant to describe was something like, I work for Company A, and Company B makes some partnership with them to deliver some product, but then I'm the main guy so Company B just hires me away
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  It's great language for shifting blame as well. Instead of a business admitting they couldn't retain an employee, which would imply that they need to look at what they are doing. By calling it poaching, they are now a victim of being poached from, and less responsible for what happened. I put this next to the people who say 'can't find anyone who does x' but who never admit it is because of the salary they are paying.
- SilasX 11y ago
  Whatever the history, it's psychologically tied up with a lot of nasty baggage, and makes it seem inherently dirty, like there's something wrong with bidding up the value of labor by seeking to offer better compensation for workers. Whatever the technical "correctness" of the term, it comes of as a sort of apology for setting better wages and we should use less loaded terms, like "recruited" or "bid/hired away".
mikeash 11y ago
That was my immediate reaction to this title as well. Even if you discount the ownership thing as a historical artifact of the language, the term is clearly used as a way to reduce competition for labor and drive down salaries.
tikhonj 11y ago
I just mentally substituted "competition" for "poaching". It makes for a very different headline!

elcct 11y ago

This term was created by companies paying low salaries and being puzzled that employees are going to companies that pay more.

mizchief2 11y ago
I had a manager that would get red-faced mad when talking about people the company would pay to go get some certification, and couldn't understand that "loyalty" wasn't enough to prevent that person from taking a higher paying job that the certification earned.

eitally 11y ago

Not really. It originated to describe high level employees who take a job and then exploit their personal network to hire away friends. This is super-common and expected, and is also the reason non-competes became popular. It wasn't until later, the tech boom, that "poaching" was repurposed to be more generalized luring of high potential employees from wherever using whatever ($, perks) means available.

chrisbennet 11y ago
An that use of the term "poaching" [high level employee hiring away friends] originated with the earlier/original meaning of the term i.e. "hunting animals illegally". The deer (for example) were the property of the King - Robin Hood was a poacher.
TheCowboy 11y ago
The idea that they need non-competes to retain talent should still set off some alarms that maybe companies aren't paying market rate salaries. Most people don't leave a company for less money and no other benefits, and there's nothing wrong with employees being lured away for more pay. That's how it's supposed to work.
emodendroket 11y ago
I always thought the scenario they meant to describe was something like, I work for Company A, and Company B makes some partnership with them to deliver some product, but then I'm the main guy so Company B just hires me away
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
It's great language for shifting blame as well. Instead of a business admitting they couldn't retain an employee, which would imply that they need to look at what they are doing. By calling it poaching, they are now a victim of being poached from, and less responsible for what happened. I put this next to the people who say 'can't find anyone who does x' but who never admit it is because of the salary they are paying.
SilasX 11y ago
Whatever the history, it's psychologically tied up with a lot of nasty baggage, and makes it seem inherently dirty, like there's something wrong with bidding up the value of labor by seeking to offer better compensation for workers. Whatever the technical "correctness" of the term, it comes of as a sort of apology for setting better wages and we should use less loaded terms, like "recruited" or "bid/hired away".

mikeash 11y ago

That was my immediate reaction to this title as well. Even if you discount the ownership thing as a historical artifact of the language, the term is clearly used as a way to reduce competition for labor and drive down salaries.

tikhonj 11y ago

I just mentally substituted "competition" for "poaching". It makes for a very different headline!