5 ms·

> Wow, that was unexpected. Great poach by Tesla. Tangential, but I really hate the term "poach" when referring to recruiting employees. We shouldn't think of

> Wow, that was unexpected. Great poach by Tesla. Tangential, but I really hate the term "poach" when referring to recruiting employees. We shouldn't think of hiring people as "poaching", because employees are not property. You can't "poach" an employee because there's no ownership, and employees should be free to make their own decisions regarding their employment opportunities.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
I'm not sure why OP was down-voted, you may disagree but his post was credible and merits a response.
- gkya 10y ago
  I downvoted most of the subthread as it was completely off-topic. I didn't come here to read this garbage.
carlosdp 10y ago
Yea, I mean that's a good point, it is kinda a weird term. I don't mind changing it I guess.
draw_down 10y ago
I agree, it's a distasteful term. People choose jobs according to what's best for them and "poaching" implies the employer's interests should matter more than that.
- ianai 10y ago
  i.e. it's an business management term.
- randomdata 10y ago
  Looking at the definition of poach, as it relates to this context, the subtext seems to be of the case where an employee leaves without warning or discussion of why they no longer want to remain at their place of employment. Like you cannot save an elephant after it has been poached, but maybe you could have if you know that there was a problem. The poach is the realization that you didn't see it coming. Of course, the employee is free to just up and walk away at any time, but if you feel it is courtesy to discuss the relationship before parting, and it wasn't discussed, then poach does not seem completely inappropriate. Having said that, in this case, we don't know many details about the parting. He and Apple may have had a good discussion about the future and came to a realization that the relationship wasn't going to work anymore, for whatever reason, and parted amicably. From another perspective, perhaps we should not even think of employer/employee agreements to be relationships in this day in age?
Angostura 10y ago
I hope you similarly dislike the term 'head-hunt' on the grounds that no-one's head is severed. 'Poach' is a useful metaphor that suggests that one company actively tried to lure an employee from another. It is a metaphor, it doesn't imply that the employee is a chattel. I think one can get a bit too precious about these things.
- aschampion 10y ago
  Language shapes perception shapes language, so it's absolutely worthwhile to be vigilant and critical about the idioms we endorse by adopting, especially for engineered phrases (e.g., "right to work").
  - Angostura 10y ago
    I absolutely agree about the power of language to shape thought. But consider, whenever you've heard of company A poaching employee Y from company B, has it really subtly made you think of Y as a helpless object? Whenever, I see it, I think of the two companies plying Y with enticements, with Y manipulating them until (s)he finally gets rich rewards with the new company.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      It doesn't make me think of Y as a helpless object. But it does make me think of A as doing something wrong. I strongly object to the term because it implies that companies shouldn't compete for employees, which pushes our salaries down.
      - ghaff 10y ago
        I think that's fair. After all, poach has literal meanings that apply to acts that are clearly wrong or illegal. In fact, if I look at the dictionary, you see words like trespass, steal, etc. You do hear poach used colloquially or even somewhat jokingly when it's not intended to imply anything nefarious but the word does imply something underhanded.
    - 10y ago
Vampires123432 10y ago
what a whiny, irrelevant comment
- draw_down 10y ago
  No.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    Yes. It is language policing nonsense. Quit trying to tell people how to talk because of imagined slights.
samirillian 10y ago
as Freud said, sometimes a poach is just a poach
elastic_church 10y ago
Pedantic, triggered by semantics, username checks out. Well to play the game, your definition and distinction about property isn't the definition of poaching that the slang was based on. Its more about the one where they steal game (the employees') from another's domain. So the company's are the property and the employees are in the bay area wilderness in and around those companies. A wild VP appeared! Tesla used money, its super effective!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

I'm not sure why OP was down-voted, you may disagree but his post was credible and merits a response.

gkya 10y ago
I downvoted most of the subthread as it was completely off-topic. I didn't come here to read this garbage.

carlosdp 10y ago

Yea, I mean that's a good point, it is kinda a weird term. I don't mind changing it I guess.

draw_down 10y ago

I agree, it's a distasteful term. People choose jobs according to what's best for them and "poaching" implies the employer's interests should matter more than that.

ianai 10y ago
i.e. it's an business management term.
randomdata 10y ago
Looking at the definition of poach, as it relates to this context, the subtext seems to be of the case where an employee leaves without warning or discussion of why they no longer want to remain at their place of employment. Like you cannot save an elephant after it has been poached, but maybe you could have if you know that there was a problem. The poach is the realization that you didn't see it coming. Of course, the employee is free to just up and walk away at any time, but if you feel it is courtesy to discuss the relationship before parting, and it wasn't discussed, then poach does not seem completely inappropriate. Having said that, in this case, we don't know many details about the parting. He and Apple may have had a good discussion about the future and came to a realization that the relationship wasn't going to work anymore, for whatever reason, and parted amicably. From another perspective, perhaps we should not even think of employer/employee agreements to be relationships in this day in age?

Angostura 10y ago

I hope you similarly dislike the term 'head-hunt' on the grounds that no-one's head is severed. 'Poach' is a useful metaphor that suggests that one company actively tried to lure an employee from another. It is a metaphor, it doesn't imply that the employee is a chattel. I think one can get a bit too precious about these things.

aschampion 10y ago
Language shapes perception shapes language, so it's absolutely worthwhile to be vigilant and critical about the idioms we endorse by adopting, especially for engineered phrases (e.g., "right to work").
- Angostura 10y ago
  I absolutely agree about the power of language to shape thought. But consider, whenever you've heard of company A poaching employee Y from company B, has it really subtly made you think of Y as a helpless object? Whenever, I see it, I think of the two companies plying Y with enticements, with Y manipulating them until (s)he finally gets rich rewards with the new company.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    It doesn't make me think of Y as a helpless object. But it does make me think of A as doing something wrong. I strongly object to the term because it implies that companies shouldn't compete for employees, which pushes our salaries down.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      I think that's fair. After all, poach has literal meanings that apply to acts that are clearly wrong or illegal. In fact, if I look at the dictionary, you see words like trespass, steal, etc. You do hear poach used colloquially or even somewhat jokingly when it's not intended to imply anything nefarious but the word does imply something underhanded.
  - 10y ago

Vampires123432 10y ago

what a whiny, irrelevant comment

draw_down 10y ago
No.
- serge2k 10y ago
  Yes. It is language policing nonsense. Quit trying to tell people how to talk because of imagined slights.

samirillian 10y ago

as Freud said, sometimes a poach is just a poach

elastic_church 10y ago

Pedantic, triggered by semantics, username checks out. Well to play the game, your definition and distinction about property isn't the definition of poaching that the slang was based on. Its more about the one where they steal game (the employees') from another's domain. So the company's are the property and the employees are in the bay area wilderness in and around those companies. A wild VP appeared! Tesla used money, its super effective!

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]