3 ms·

Anti-poaching agreements are bad, but they aren't nearly as bad as non-competes. Anti-poaching agreements mean one company won't cold contact employees at anoth

Anti-poaching agreements are bad, but they aren't nearly as bad as non-competes. Anti-poaching agreements mean one company won't cold contact employees at another. But employees who want to switch of their own initiative are still able to do so. Non-competes blocks even employees who want to switch of their own initiative.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Anti-poaching agreements are bad, but they aren't nearly as bad as non-competes. Anti-poaching agreements are non-competes, just between firms rather than a firm and their employees. > Anti-poaching agreements mean one company won't cold contact employees at another No, that's not all they mean. The most trivial anti-poaching agreement might restrain itself that way, but anti-poaching agreements can and regularly have included agreements not to employ workers from the other firm, not merely to avoid certain active recruitment/solicitation steps.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  > Anti-poaching agreements are non-competes, just between firms rather than a firm and their employees. I don't see anything about non-poaching agreements in a cursory look at Wikipedia's article non Non-competes[1]. > No, that's not all they mean. The most trivial anti-poaching agreement might restrain itself that way, but anti-poaching agreements can and regularly have included agreements not to employ workers from the other firm, not merely to avoid certain active recruitment/solicitation steps. Yes, you're right. Thanks for the clarification. I guess what I should have said is the specific anti-poaching agreement that bonestamp2 mentioned was only about active recruitment. But still even with this broader definition of anti-poaching, they're not as bad as non-competes. A non-compete would prevent the founding of Intel (by former Fairchild Semiconductor employees), but a broad anti-poaching agreement would not prevent the founding of Intel. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Anti-poaching agreements are bad, but they aren't nearly as bad as non-competes. Anti-poaching agreements are non-competes, just between firms rather than a firm and their employees. > Anti-poaching agreements mean one company won't cold contact employees at another No, that's not all they mean. The most trivial anti-poaching agreement might restrain itself that way, but anti-poaching agreements can and regularly have included agreements not to employ workers from the other firm, not merely to avoid certain active recruitment/solicitation steps.

Thorrez 6y ago
> Anti-poaching agreements are non-competes, just between firms rather than a firm and their employees. I don't see anything about non-poaching agreements in a cursory look at Wikipedia's article non Non-competes[1]. > No, that's not all they mean. The most trivial anti-poaching agreement might restrain itself that way, but anti-poaching agreements can and regularly have included agreements not to employ workers from the other firm, not merely to avoid certain active recruitment/solicitation steps. Yes, you're right. Thanks for the clarification. I guess what I should have said is the specific anti-poaching agreement that bonestamp2 mentioned was only about active recruitment. But still even with this broader definition of anti-poaching, they're not as bad as non-competes. A non-compete would prevent the founding of Intel (by former Fairchild Semiconductor employees), but a broad anti-poaching agreement would not prevent the founding of Intel. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause