2 ms·

That's a reasonable moral position, but in this case the outcome is immoral: preventing an employee from changing jobs because the CEO values his friendship wit

• gojomo 16y ago
  That depends on the specificity of the employee's skills, and the variety of other options. If the employee's top two options are the companies with close CEOs, maybe the inter-corporate coordination is part of the reason the employee has especially valuable skills. If the employee has other options, the tiny marginal loss from being disqualified from one open position may have been outweighed by the benefits they had previously received by being 'inside the zone or cooperation'. There are too many considerations to offer a pat judgement for all cases. If giant employers have a no-poaching agreement covering thousands of employees, I can see that being mostly harmful – and also the easiest practice to detect and punish (as with the DOJ action regarding Apple, Google and others). If the no-poaching agreement is limited to a small number of strategically-central people, or a few very chummy smaller-enterprise management teams, its benefits could outweigh the costs.