5 ms·

Here is Ben 3 years previously recommending that executives break the law to preserve their standing with each other: "It is important to note that just about

Here is Ben 3 years previously recommending that executives break the law to preserve their standing with each other: "It is important to note that just about all of these kinds of policies violate the Right to Work laws in California. Specifically, if you block a hire based on this kind of policy and the employee loses their job and cannot find work, your company is liable for his wages. As a result, the business relationship with the other company must be extremely important for you to employ any kind of “hands off” policy." https://a16z.com/2011/02/23/is-it-ok-to-hire-people-from-your-friends-company/ https://a16z.com/2011/02/23/is-it-ok-to-hire-people-from-you...

Scaevolus 8y ago
Violating California labor law is unlikely to land you in jail-- most of the penalties are financial.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I mean, given the tone of this post and the talk of how important it is to run everything by the counsel, "not committing a crime that literally leads to the executives being jailed" is a pretty low bar.
  - rossdavidh 8y ago
    ...albeit a higher bar than many of his peers could clear.
- valarauca1 8y ago
  Advocating the violation of labor laws is generally considered a bad look irregardless of the punishment be it jail or fines.
rgbrenner 8y ago
Thanks for finding that. I remember reading this in the book, and immediately thought of the anti-poaching deal Google, Apple, Intel, Adobe, etc had with each other. It's identical to the activity they were found guilty of... He actually recommends you do this. When he suggested collusion with other companies, I realized the book may have some bad advice in it.
emodendroket 8y ago
Yikes. > With that in mind, the best way to deal with these situations is openly and transparently. Once the you become aware of the conflict between hiring the superstar employee and double-crossing your valued friend, you should get the issue onto the table by informing the employee that you have an important business relationship with his existing company and you will have to complete a reference check with the CEO prior to extending the offer. Let him know that if he does not want that to happen, then you will stop the process now and keep the process to date confidential. By speaking with your friend before making the hire, you will be able to better judge the relationship impact of hiring her employee. In addition, you may avoid making a bad hire as often candidates who do well in interviews turn out to be bad employees. I'm not sure "open and transparent" is how I'd describe that.
- C7H8N4O2 8y ago
  Straightforward and discreet, maybe.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Illegal, another word. Legally "suboptimal", in that you're confessing to the future victim of a crime that you're about to inflict a crime on him. Not only do you become liable, we've just established conspiracy to commit, rather than just the crime itself. This generally doubles the penalty. Bonus idiot points for doing it over email.
pbiggar 8y ago
I read the book and this was one position I found indefensible. Employees must have the ability to move companies, and any attempt to block it is bad and immoral. If an employee of any of my friends applied we would absolutely consider them and give them an offer, over any objections their old boss had.
paulsutter 8y ago
> A good rule of thumb is the reflexive principle of employee raiding which states: “if you would be shocked and horrified if company X hired several of your employees, then you should not hire any of theirs.” This seems really childish. I would only be shocked if friendly/partner companies /actively recruited/ staff from me. I would never be shocked if they hired a current employee who felt the new job was a better fit. In fact I would be happy for everyone involved.
- _jal 8y ago
  Frankly, the proprietary "your" or "my" employees is already the wrong way to think. I don't belong to my CEO - my CEO needs to give a reason to want to offer them my time. And while it is unlikely I'd find out, if I did find that management at my company made slimy deals with other firms to hurt my career, I'd be out the door immediately, loudly explaining to my coworkers and extended network of technical types why. The superhero-CEO myth in the valley needs to go. It isn't even healthy for them.
torstenvl 8y ago
There is a difference between "this is criminal" and "this might make you civilly liable to pay someone's wages." Referring to the latter as "break[ing] the law" in the context of discussing criminal activity is misleading.
gammateam 8y ago
Thats because > your company is liable for his wages doesn't cross his threshold of > In this business .... we will not go to jail its consequentialism 101. do the consequences deter you. A criminal charge from the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH INFINITE RESOURCES vs a civil charge from a bankrupt state against the most capitalized entities on the planet HMMM TOUGH CHOICE you may have been indoctrinated to respect due process of all laws as written from any united state and from the national republic itself, thats not the same game that everyone is playing.
- noonenowhere 8y ago
  The game he was playing was "become a billionaire." I was a member of the protected class in the Apple-Pixar-Google etc case. When I left, I got a 50% raise. I estimate that that collusion cost O(10,000) people between $50,000 and $500,000 each (my settlement was less than $10K, and my personal loss was ~$40,000/yr * 5 years). Given that Ben is discussing executives here, let's say: O(1,000) people what, $100,000 to $1,000,000 each?
  - gammateam 8y ago
    Thats insightful why are you using big O notation?
    - pianoben 8y ago
      I often see this used informally as shorthand for "on the order of", which is another way people say "approximately".
      - uiri 8y ago
        "on the order of" is not synonymous with "approximately" "on the order of" 1000000 means any number from 1000001 through 9999999 I would expect "approximately" to mean accurate to within the next order of magnitude down. e.g. I would expect "approximately 500000" to mean a range of 400000 to 600000; maybe 350000 to 650000 if you're stretching it.

Scaevolus 8y ago

Violating California labor law is unlikely to land you in jail-- most of the penalties are financial.

emodendroket 8y ago
I mean, given the tone of this post and the talk of how important it is to run everything by the counsel, "not committing a crime that literally leads to the executives being jailed" is a pretty low bar.
- rossdavidh 8y ago
  ...albeit a higher bar than many of his peers could clear.
valarauca1 8y ago
Advocating the violation of labor laws is generally considered a bad look irregardless of the punishment be it jail or fines.

rgbrenner 8y ago

Thanks for finding that. I remember reading this in the book, and immediately thought of the anti-poaching deal Google, Apple, Intel, Adobe, etc had with each other. It's identical to the activity they were found guilty of... He actually recommends you do this. When he suggested collusion with other companies, I realized the book may have some bad advice in it.

emodendroket 8y ago

Yikes. > With that in mind, the best way to deal with these situations is openly and transparently. Once the you become aware of the conflict between hiring the superstar employee and double-crossing your valued friend, you should get the issue onto the table by informing the employee that you have an important business relationship with his existing company and you will have to complete a reference check with the CEO prior to extending the offer. Let him know that if he does not want that to happen, then you will stop the process now and keep the process to date confidential. By speaking with your friend before making the hire, you will be able to better judge the relationship impact of hiring her employee. In addition, you may avoid making a bad hire as often candidates who do well in interviews turn out to be bad employees. I'm not sure "open and transparent" is how I'd describe that.

C7H8N4O2 8y ago
Straightforward and discreet, maybe.
- candiodari 8y ago
  Illegal, another word. Legally "suboptimal", in that you're confessing to the future victim of a crime that you're about to inflict a crime on him. Not only do you become liable, we've just established conspiracy to commit, rather than just the crime itself. This generally doubles the penalty. Bonus idiot points for doing it over email.

pbiggar 8y ago

I read the book and this was one position I found indefensible. Employees must have the ability to move companies, and any attempt to block it is bad and immoral. If an employee of any of my friends applied we would absolutely consider them and give them an offer, over any objections their old boss had.

paulsutter 8y ago

> A good rule of thumb is the reflexive principle of employee raiding which states: “if you would be shocked and horrified if company X hired several of your employees, then you should not hire any of theirs.” This seems really childish. I would only be shocked if friendly/partner companies /actively recruited/ staff from me. I would never be shocked if they hired a current employee who felt the new job was a better fit. In fact I would be happy for everyone involved.

_jal 8y ago
Frankly, the proprietary "your" or "my" employees is already the wrong way to think. I don't belong to my CEO - my CEO needs to give a reason to want to offer them my time. And while it is unlikely I'd find out, if I did find that management at my company made slimy deals with other firms to hurt my career, I'd be out the door immediately, loudly explaining to my coworkers and extended network of technical types why. The superhero-CEO myth in the valley needs to go. It isn't even healthy for them.

torstenvl 8y ago

There is a difference between "this is criminal" and "this might make you civilly liable to pay someone's wages." Referring to the latter as "break[ing] the law" in the context of discussing criminal activity is misleading.

gammateam 8y ago

Thats because > your company is liable for his wages doesn't cross his threshold of > In this business .... we will not go to jail its consequentialism 101. do the consequences deter you. A criminal charge from the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH INFINITE RESOURCES vs a civil charge from a bankrupt state against the most capitalized entities on the planet HMMM TOUGH CHOICE you may have been indoctrinated to respect due process of all laws as written from any united state and from the national republic itself, thats not the same game that everyone is playing.

noonenowhere 8y ago
The game he was playing was "become a billionaire." I was a member of the protected class in the Apple-Pixar-Google etc case. When I left, I got a 50% raise. I estimate that that collusion cost O(10,000) people between $50,000 and $500,000 each (my settlement was less than $10K, and my personal loss was ~$40,000/yr * 5 years). Given that Ben is discussing executives here, let's say: O(1,000) people what, $100,000 to $1,000,000 each?
- gammateam 8y ago
  Thats insightful why are you using big O notation?
  - pianoben 8y ago
    I often see this used informally as shorthand for "on the order of", which is another way people say "approximately".
    - uiri 8y ago
      "on the order of" is not synonymous with "approximately" "on the order of" 1000000 means any number from 1000001 through 9999999 I would expect "approximately" to mean accurate to within the next order of magnitude down. e.g. I would expect "approximately 500000" to mean a range of 400000 to 600000; maybe 350000 to 650000 if you're stretching it.