6 ms·

> I'm amazed that the contract Star Theory had with Take-Two didn't have a clause prohibiting Take-Two from poaching employees like this. Please don’t use the

> I'm amazed that the contract Star Theory had with Take-Two didn't have a clause prohibiting Take-Two from poaching employees like this. Please don’t use the word “poached” to describe getting employees to voluntarily join your company by offering better compensation. Unlike animal poaching, employee poaching is actually good for the employees being poached. In the name of preventing “poaching” many Silicon Valley companies in the past engaged in an illegal scheme to fix employee wages.

ceejayoz 6y ago
I'm not sure you can necessarily call it voluntary if the offer comes paired with "oh and we're bankrupting your current employer".
marcinzm 6y ago
>Unlike animal poaching, employee poaching is actually good for the employees being poached. That depends on their negotiation positions. "We're effectively killing your employer, you can join us for 10% less salary or take your luck on the job market." This situation was more akin to a mass prisoner's dilemma than standard poaching.
Dayshine 6y ago
> to describe getting employees to voluntarily join your company by offering better compensation Huh? They withdrew the contract from their current employer, making them redundant, then offered them a job. I'm not sure abusing your position of power as sole "client" to bankrupt my employer to hire me counts as "offering better compensation". If not poaching, perhaps coercing, compelling, forcing?
MattyMc 6y ago
I don't think people are interpreting the term "poached" as literally as you are. Losing an employee to a competitor is bad for a company, especially bad for a small company, hence the negative connotation.
- GuiA 6y ago
  "Poaching" is terminology used by recruiters/executives precisely to control the narrative, and justify the kind of employee-hostile decisions that OP is referring to. It makes sense to reconsider the use of that word given that employers competing on wages and benefits does benefit the employees.
  - Dayshine 6y ago
    Would you describe this as Poaching: - Finding a small zoo - Deliberately bankrupting them - Buying their animals cheap and slaughtering them In my mind Poaching equates to using illegal or unethical means to hunt animals. Bankrupting a zoo to rid the animals of their protection feels like that to me.
    - sk0g 6y ago
      It's used a lot in sports, where one team "poaches exciting talent" from another, etc. so I don't see a problem with it myself.
      - nogabebop23 6y ago
        This is not true at all. Professional athletes are all independent contractors with explicitly defined terms of engagement and restrictions on changing employers. They even call it "free agency". This is a different legal beast than a standard employment agreement.
        baseballdork 6y ago
        It is absolutely true that poaching is a common term in sports[1]. [1] https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2023482-5-milwaukee-bucks-who-nba-teams-should-be-poaching-this-offseason https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2023482-5-milwaukee-buck...
  - TheCraiggers 6y ago
    You're making a lot of assumptions that this is a win for the employees. Besides the fact that the employees in question were quite literally being given the choice of "come work for us or lose your job", there's things like the quote below from TFA: 'Patrick Meade, a senior engineer at Star Theory, said he turned down the job offer from Take-Two. He declined to discuss the events in detail but said he didn’t want to work for a big company where he wouldn’t have the same degree of influence or financial benefits if the game were a hit. “I was at a small studio, where the work I did had a massive impact on our success,” Meade said. “When I see myself at any large corporation, that is fundamentally not true."' It's not all about wages. (But even if it were, notice that he chose not to take the offer because of the lesser profit sharing. So it's not just a net win, even for those that did take the offer.)
munk-a 6y ago
In this case the employees were faced with a decision to lose their jobs working on KSP2 or take whatever Take-Two was offering. I agree that normally "poaching" is word used by some really slimly people who want to make sure labour doesn't realize how much it is worth - so it'd be great if a different term was used above. But in this case it might actually be an accurately illustrative word for what actually happened.
em-bee 6y ago
there is a difference between offering jobs on an open market and having a bunch of people take on that offer, vs directly targeting people that work at a company they are contracting with, who are not actually looking for a job

ceejayoz 6y ago

I'm not sure you can necessarily call it voluntary if the offer comes paired with "oh and we're bankrupting your current employer".

marcinzm 6y ago

>Unlike animal poaching, employee poaching is actually good for the employees being poached. That depends on their negotiation positions. "We're effectively killing your employer, you can join us for 10% less salary or take your luck on the job market." This situation was more akin to a mass prisoner's dilemma than standard poaching.

Dayshine 6y ago

> to describe getting employees to voluntarily join your company by offering better compensation Huh? They withdrew the contract from their current employer, making them redundant, then offered them a job. I'm not sure abusing your position of power as sole "client" to bankrupt my employer to hire me counts as "offering better compensation". If not poaching, perhaps coercing, compelling, forcing?

MattyMc 6y ago

I don't think people are interpreting the term "poached" as literally as you are. Losing an employee to a competitor is bad for a company, especially bad for a small company, hence the negative connotation.

GuiA 6y ago
"Poaching" is terminology used by recruiters/executives precisely to control the narrative, and justify the kind of employee-hostile decisions that OP is referring to. It makes sense to reconsider the use of that word given that employers competing on wages and benefits does benefit the employees.
- Dayshine 6y ago
  Would you describe this as Poaching: - Finding a small zoo - Deliberately bankrupting them - Buying their animals cheap and slaughtering them In my mind Poaching equates to using illegal or unethical means to hunt animals. Bankrupting a zoo to rid the animals of their protection feels like that to me.
  - sk0g 6y ago
    It's used a lot in sports, where one team "poaches exciting talent" from another, etc. so I don't see a problem with it myself.
    - nogabebop23 6y ago
      This is not true at all. Professional athletes are all independent contractors with explicitly defined terms of engagement and restrictions on changing employers. They even call it "free agency". This is a different legal beast than a standard employment agreement.
      - baseballdork 6y ago
        It is absolutely true that poaching is a common term in sports[1]. [1] https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2023482-5-milwaukee-bucks-who-nba-teams-should-be-poaching-this-offseason https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2023482-5-milwaukee-buck...
- TheCraiggers 6y ago
  You're making a lot of assumptions that this is a win for the employees. Besides the fact that the employees in question were quite literally being given the choice of "come work for us or lose your job", there's things like the quote below from TFA: 'Patrick Meade, a senior engineer at Star Theory, said he turned down the job offer from Take-Two. He declined to discuss the events in detail but said he didn’t want to work for a big company where he wouldn’t have the same degree of influence or financial benefits if the game were a hit. “I was at a small studio, where the work I did had a massive impact on our success,” Meade said. “When I see myself at any large corporation, that is fundamentally not true."' It's not all about wages. (But even if it were, notice that he chose not to take the offer because of the lesser profit sharing. So it's not just a net win, even for those that did take the offer.)

munk-a 6y ago

In this case the employees were faced with a decision to lose their jobs working on KSP2 or take whatever Take-Two was offering. I agree that normally "poaching" is word used by some really slimly people who want to make sure labour doesn't realize how much it is worth - so it'd be great if a different term was used above. But in this case it might actually be an accurately illustrative word for what actually happened.

em-bee 6y ago

there is a difference between offering jobs on an open market and having a bunch of people take on that offer, vs directly targeting people that work at a company they are contracting with, who are not actually looking for a job