4 ms·

> because it implies that employees are property than can be stolen What makes you believe this? The definition of “poach” is not intrinsically linked to the n

> because it implies that employees are property than can be stolen What makes you believe this? The definition of “poach” is not intrinsically linked to the notion of ownership/property. The word has several definitions, one of which describes a method of preparing eggs (and others that clearly distinguish between things like illegally killing animals, hiring practices, etc). It doesn’t make sense to me to take the definition that has nothing to do with employment and attach the weight/meaning of that unrelated definition to hiring practices. Put another way, it would be silly to say “poaching is a horrible term to use for this because it implies that employees are eggs that can be cooked and eaten”. I find the consternation about hiring terminology here to be about the same.

wat10000 1y ago
It would be silly to say it implies that employees are eggs because “poach” as in eggs and “poach” as in employees clearly don’t mean the same thing. But “poach” as in employees is clearly derived from “poach” as in game. My quibble isn’t really with the terminology. It’s with the idea that hiring another company’s employees is somehow bad. It’s perfectly fine. It’s good for employees. It’s only bad for employers who want to suppress wages. The fact that it’s called “poaching” is just a reflection of the idea that it’s bad.
- haswell 1y ago
  > But “poach” as in employees is clearly derived from “poach” as in game. This is not obvious to me at all, nor have I ever conflated the two in my mind. Hell, the literal dictionary disagrees with you. But beyond this, language evolves. There are many examples of words used today that bear very little resemblance to their original roots. The thing I find curious is that you recognize immediately that eggs are unrelated to hiring employees, but refuse to acknowledge that shooting animals is also entirely unrelated to hiring employees. > My quibble isn’t really with the terminology. That’s not what you said above: “I’m saying that “poaching” is a horrible term for that action”. > It’s with the idea that hiring another company’s employees is somehow bad. It’s perfectly fine. Sometimes it’s fine, sometimes it’s not. I’ve been poached. It worked out well for me. But hopefully you can recognize that not all scenarios are equal. > It’s only bad for employers who want to suppress wages. When a massive conglomerate poaches entire teams to crush competition, those wages aren’t gonna be around very long. In some (not all) circumstances, it’s anti-competitive and when examined in the context of the whole, is not guaranteed to be good for employees in the long run. > The fact that it’s called “poaching” is just a reflection of the idea that it’s bad. Again, this is the weight you are attaching to the word. The word holds no such weight in my mind nor have I ever encountered a person in my 20+ year career prior to this thread who was upset by it. This is a you thing.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    Language evolves, sure, but not aimlessly. “Poach” for employees didn’t arise independently, it’s a metaphor using the hunting term. If you never realized that, that’s a you thing. It should be pretty obvious. “Poaching” employees has negative connotations. It’s seen as something illicit. If you do a search for the term, just about every single result will be some page discussing whether or not it’s illegal, and the ethics around it. It is directly analogous to poaching animals and people clearly think there are potential ethical problems with it, to the extent that people think it might even be against the law.
    - haswell 1y ago
      > “Poach” for employees didn’t arise independently This is missing the point. No business person is using the word “poach” in the context of hiring is conflating it with hunting animals. People describing the act of poaching employees are not somehow contributing to the idea that employees are property. These are imaginary concerns being projected. Words only have the meaning we collectively assign them, and again, if you’re assigning some kind of “employees are animals to be hunted” association, that is something you are doing, not something that is broadly accepted. Humorously, you’re doing more to attach harmful connotations in this thread than 20 years of interacting with thousands of people in the corporate world, and I can honestly say that this thread is the first time in my 40 years of living that I’ve encountered someone who seems to conflate these entirely unrelated things. If you are concerned about people making this conflation, one of the most effective ways of preventing that would be to stop spreading the idea that the two things are related - an idea that I guarantee has not occurred to many people until they found this discussion. > people clearly think there are potential ethical problems with it, to the extent that people think it might even be against the law Yes. Emphasis on the word potential. Poaching employees may be unethical, but to your point, is controversial because that’s not always true. You still have not articulated why you believe it’s appropriate to act as if those present ethical concerns (or lack thereof) have anything to do with hunting animals or the definition of a word that does not apply to this context. The English language is filled with words that have similarly evolved, and people use those words daily without causing harm. If you can demonstrate (with evidence) why you believe this word causes appreciable real world harm, I’m willing to consider it. Thus far, your argument can be summed up as “I find it offensive”. And that is simply not compelling.
burnerthrow008 1y ago
> What makes you believe this? The definition of “poach” is not intrinsically linked to the notion of ownership/property. My dictionary gives this definition for "poaching": 1. to trespass for the purpose of stealing game 2. to appropriate (something) as one's own You cannot "steal" or "appropriate" something which is not property or which cannot be owned. You are being very disingenuous to say that the word is not intrinsically linked to ownership or property.
- haswell 1y ago
  Your dictionary is either not exhaustive, or it’s out of date. The word is not limited to the notions of “stealing” or “appropriation”, nor has it been for decades. Just one example, but current dictionaries cover the business use of the word (among many others), e.g. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poach https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poach > You are being very disingenuous to say that the word is not intrinsically linked to ownership or property. Are you claiming that other definitions of “poach” do not exist? If you are, you are misinformed. If you are not, you are misunderstanding the word “intrinsic”.

wat10000 1y ago

It would be silly to say it implies that employees are eggs because “poach” as in eggs and “poach” as in employees clearly don’t mean the same thing. But “poach” as in employees is clearly derived from “poach” as in game. My quibble isn’t really with the terminology. It’s with the idea that hiring another company’s employees is somehow bad. It’s perfectly fine. It’s good for employees. It’s only bad for employers who want to suppress wages. The fact that it’s called “poaching” is just a reflection of the idea that it’s bad.

haswell 1y ago
> But “poach” as in employees is clearly derived from “poach” as in game. This is not obvious to me at all, nor have I ever conflated the two in my mind. Hell, the literal dictionary disagrees with you. But beyond this, language evolves. There are many examples of words used today that bear very little resemblance to their original roots. The thing I find curious is that you recognize immediately that eggs are unrelated to hiring employees, but refuse to acknowledge that shooting animals is also entirely unrelated to hiring employees. > My quibble isn’t really with the terminology. That’s not what you said above: “I’m saying that “poaching” is a horrible term for that action”. > It’s with the idea that hiring another company’s employees is somehow bad. It’s perfectly fine. Sometimes it’s fine, sometimes it’s not. I’ve been poached. It worked out well for me. But hopefully you can recognize that not all scenarios are equal. > It’s only bad for employers who want to suppress wages. When a massive conglomerate poaches entire teams to crush competition, those wages aren’t gonna be around very long. In some (not all) circumstances, it’s anti-competitive and when examined in the context of the whole, is not guaranteed to be good for employees in the long run. > The fact that it’s called “poaching” is just a reflection of the idea that it’s bad. Again, this is the weight you are attaching to the word. The word holds no such weight in my mind nor have I ever encountered a person in my 20+ year career prior to this thread who was upset by it. This is a you thing.
- wat10000 1y ago
  Language evolves, sure, but not aimlessly. “Poach” for employees didn’t arise independently, it’s a metaphor using the hunting term. If you never realized that, that’s a you thing. It should be pretty obvious. “Poaching” employees has negative connotations. It’s seen as something illicit. If you do a search for the term, just about every single result will be some page discussing whether or not it’s illegal, and the ethics around it. It is directly analogous to poaching animals and people clearly think there are potential ethical problems with it, to the extent that people think it might even be against the law.
  - haswell 1y ago
    > “Poach” for employees didn’t arise independently This is missing the point. No business person is using the word “poach” in the context of hiring is conflating it with hunting animals. People describing the act of poaching employees are not somehow contributing to the idea that employees are property. These are imaginary concerns being projected. Words only have the meaning we collectively assign them, and again, if you’re assigning some kind of “employees are animals to be hunted” association, that is something you are doing, not something that is broadly accepted. Humorously, you’re doing more to attach harmful connotations in this thread than 20 years of interacting with thousands of people in the corporate world, and I can honestly say that this thread is the first time in my 40 years of living that I’ve encountered someone who seems to conflate these entirely unrelated things. If you are concerned about people making this conflation, one of the most effective ways of preventing that would be to stop spreading the idea that the two things are related - an idea that I guarantee has not occurred to many people until they found this discussion. > people clearly think there are potential ethical problems with it, to the extent that people think it might even be against the law Yes. Emphasis on the word potential. Poaching employees may be unethical, but to your point, is controversial because that’s not always true. You still have not articulated why you believe it’s appropriate to act as if those present ethical concerns (or lack thereof) have anything to do with hunting animals or the definition of a word that does not apply to this context. The English language is filled with words that have similarly evolved, and people use those words daily without causing harm. If you can demonstrate (with evidence) why you believe this word causes appreciable real world harm, I’m willing to consider it. Thus far, your argument can be summed up as “I find it offensive”. And that is simply not compelling.

burnerthrow008 1y ago

> What makes you believe this? The definition of “poach” is not intrinsically linked to the notion of ownership/property. My dictionary gives this definition for "poaching": 1. to trespass for the purpose of stealing game 2. to appropriate (something) as one's own You cannot "steal" or "appropriate" something which is not property or which cannot be owned. You are being very disingenuous to say that the word is not intrinsically linked to ownership or property.

haswell 1y ago
Your dictionary is either not exhaustive, or it’s out of date. The word is not limited to the notions of “stealing” or “appropriation”, nor has it been for decades. Just one example, but current dictionaries cover the business use of the word (among many others), e.g. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poach https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poach > You are being very disingenuous to say that the word is not intrinsically linked to ownership or property. Are you claiming that other definitions of “poach” do not exist? If you are, you are misinformed. If you are not, you are misunderstanding the word “intrinsic”.