4 ms·
I think it’s poaching from the perspective of the employer not the employee. The employer wants to keep its prized employees from getting poached by other ruthl
by throwaway1777 6y ago
I think it’s poaching from the perspective of the employer not the employee. The employer wants to keep its prized employees from getting poached by other ruthless employers.
- ptmcc 6y agoThis is purely their fault for being uncompetitive in the wages and benefits offered to their employees. Of course they try to spin it negatively with loaded language. The best way to protect your prized employees is to treat them so well they'd be crazy to look elsewhere. If you, the business owner, can't afford that then you just aren't as competitive or successful as you think you are.
- georgeecollins 6y agoOr.. free markets for the capital holders, patronage for the workers. I don't mean to be malicious or anti-capitalist, but this seems like another example where companies want free markets when it involves taxes or costly regulation. But they oppose free markets when it causes labor costs to go up or reduces barriers to entry. It's a logical position for a corporation to hold but there is no ideological justification.
- ptmcc 6y agoHypocrisy? In my corporate America?? It's all platitudes of free market competition and meritocracy until the going gets tough and the competition (be it other businesses or labor) gets ahead of you. Then it's sob stories for bailouts, anti-competitive practices, and "but we're like a family here" drivel.
- dbish 6y agoThen pay them more and give them a better situation. So many employers don't give existing employees the right pay increases to keep them from making more by jumping to another company. That's on the employer