4 ms·

> 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,

> 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.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    Of course nobody in business is conflating this with hunting animals. Do you not understand what a metaphor is? I find this comment very confusing. > Thus far, your argument can be summed up as “I find it offensive”. And that is simply not compelling. Do not confuse your lack of understanding or agreement for a lack of substance. You don’t have to see things my way, but my argument is not even remotely accurately summarized that way. Here is an actually accurate summary: there’s nothing wrong with hiring other companies’ employees, commonly referred to as “poaching.” It’s commonly frowned upon (see multiple examples in these comments) but it’s just free association, and the idea that it’s bad is ridiculous. All that idea does is help to suppress wages by reducing competition among employers. And this ridiculous notion that “poaching” employees is bad is reflected in the common term used to describe it. You’re focusing on entirely the wrong thing here. The meaning of the word “poaching” is merely illustrative of the problem I have, it’s not the problem itself. The actual problem is the attitude that employees somehow belong to their employers such that it might be improper to entice them away.

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.
- wat10000 1y ago
  Of course nobody in business is conflating this with hunting animals. Do you not understand what a metaphor is? I find this comment very confusing. > Thus far, your argument can be summed up as “I find it offensive”. And that is simply not compelling. Do not confuse your lack of understanding or agreement for a lack of substance. You don’t have to see things my way, but my argument is not even remotely accurately summarized that way. Here is an actually accurate summary: there’s nothing wrong with hiring other companies’ employees, commonly referred to as “poaching.” It’s commonly frowned upon (see multiple examples in these comments) but it’s just free association, and the idea that it’s bad is ridiculous. All that idea does is help to suppress wages by reducing competition among employers. And this ridiculous notion that “poaching” employees is bad is reflected in the common term used to describe it. You’re focusing on entirely the wrong thing here. The meaning of the word “poaching” is merely illustrative of the problem I have, it’s not the problem itself. The actual problem is the attitude that employees somehow belong to their employers such that it might be improper to entice them away.