5 ms·

Pure tyranny.

enraged_camel 14y ago
I disagree. Poaching is frowned upon in every industry. That said, it is likely the Palm CEO wasn't aware that the 3 employees they hired were poached. He probably thought they came on their own. Which just goes on to show how out of touch with reality he must have been (ironically, since it was Jobs who was known for his Reality Distortion Field). I mean, who in their right mind would leave Apple and join Palm, of all places?
- tlrobinson 14y ago
  "I mean, who in their right mind would leave Apple and join Palm, of all places?" Keep in mind this exchange took place in 2007, soon after the very first iPhone was launched.
  - TheAnimus 14y ago
    Maybe someone who was offered a better deal? Apple aren't exactly renowned for giving people a say in development, save a few royal elite. If your an untouchable at Apple, but are offered a good role at Palm, why not take it? It's the old sentiment of would you rather live in a decrepid shack on a fancy road, or a grand house on a normal one.
- tolmasky 14y ago
  There is nothing wrong with poaching (and it is certainly not illegal). It is frowned upon the same way as "talking about your salary" is frowned upon, and usually for the same reason: it leads to increased leverage for employees. By creating fictitious mores around these two activities, employees have less of an understanding of how well or badly they are being treated (less insight into the market for their talents). If you are making twice as much as me because I am a better negotiator, you may continue without a fuss for years if you never find out. Creating a culture about not talking about your salary is thus highly valuable to an employer. Similarly, if I am a good employee and too distracted by working, I may never realize that the going salary for a company is now X times what I make. Another company contacting me may make me aware of this, and thus it is equally beneficial to attach false stigma to this practice. There is (or was at some point) a similar amount of stigma about being disloyal to your employer (thankfully this has more or less disappeared). If it is so absurd that someone would leave Apple for Palm, then why did they care and threaten so much?
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    >>There is nothing wrong with poaching (and it is certainly not illegal). I've always found it unethical. It's similar to going to a girl who has a boyfriend and saying "hey baby, I know you're dating Mike, but I would be such a better boyfriend for you..." Whether or not you would actually be a better boyfriend, or whether it is good for the girl, is quite besides the point.
    - tolmasky 14y ago
      This line of reasoning requires the belief that a company has some special claim to you, which I find pretty distasteful. The company doesn't own you, you are not an indentured servant. You didn't sign a contract saying you'd work there for life. And more importantly, they will certainly fire you as soon as they need to. This is in no way analogous to a committed marital relationship, where the entire idea is lifetime exclusivity, or dating when you are theoretically working towards that.
      - enraged_camel 14y ago
        >>This line of reasoning requires the belief that a company has some special claim to you, which I find pretty distasteful. The company doesn't own you, you are not an indentured servant. Neither does your girlfriend. You are not an indentured servant to her. But the fact that you are dating her means that there is mutual trust on both sides, similar to that in an employee-employer arrangement. Poaching undermines that trust. edit: not sure why I'm getting downvoted. "Don't downvote simply because you disagree" was an unspoken rule, I thought? If you have a disagreement, voice it.
        tolmasky 14y ago
        The employer-employee relationship is a contractual agreement regarding the exchange of money for labor. Are you going to argue that that is similar to dating? Hopefully not. The day I have to pay my girlfriend to be with me is the day I won't be offended if someone tries to "steal" her away. Employer-employee relationships are asymmetrical and purely business oriented. There is no "trust" on their side, I can guarantee you that - that is why they have you sign NDA's when you work on secret things (I have yet to find a company that just trusts you to keep it all secret). That is why it is so beneficial for them to rely on you believing in precisely these sorts of analogies: they have lawyers and contracts on their side, you are left with believing in "loyalty" and "trust". The fact that you equate contractual work between a corporation and a person to a loving relationship between two equals is quite demonstrative of my original point.
- franze 14y ago
  >Poaching is frowned upon in every industry. no, it's not. there is not an unlimited supply of good and experiences people on the market. if you wan't to succeed you have to get them, somehow. it's competing for ressources, it's a good thing. it's frowned upon only if somebody good is "poached away", but not if you convince somebody from the competition to work for you.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  >Poaching is frowned upon in every industry by the companies who want to exploit people without worrying about competition. FTFY. Labor is a market exactly like any other. If I buy Chevrolet for years and then suddenly switch to Ford because they offer a better deal was I "poached"? Such a nonsensical concept. If you don't want people "poaching" your talent, pay them better. If you can't afford to then that's just the market efficiently allocating resources.
  - walshemj 14y ago
    Amen brother its how capitalism works
  - nathan_long 14y ago
    I agree, except for this: imagine Company X will pay twice as much for engineers who currently work for a competitor, specifically because they want to get the competitor's knowledge. The competitor can try non-complete clauses, but those may not hold up legally. They can threaten to sue former employees who betray secrets, but it's pretty hard not to use or at least be inspired by what you've learned in a past job. I don't see a good solution to this, but I can see why one would be upset by such "poaching." That said, "do what we want or we'll sue you for patent infringement" is an inexcusable tactic.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      >specifically because they want to get the competitor's knowledge. This is covered by NDAs and if you can prove these were violated you can get something done about it. I've seen this happen. >The competitor can try non-complete clauses, but those may not hold up legally. I should certainly hope they wouldn't be held up legally. It's bullshit. The worker has a chance to make twice as much money. They shouldn't get blocked because some company thinks we're still in slavery times. If it really matters so much to the company, they could just pay those workers double themselves (since, by definition, that's the market rate of those workers now). Moving is always a bit of a pain so if they're not already very unhappy they might even take less than double just to not have to move. >They can threaten to sue former employees who betray secrets If they can prove the NDA was violated they will sue and they will win. >but it's pretty hard not to use or at least be inspired by what you've learned in a past job. What you learn on the job is yours. This is known and completely accepted. If this were not the case then a Senior programmer would make the same money as a fresh-out-of-college Junior programmer. You may find this extreme but some of us believe a programmer should get some kind of residuals for anything they write for a company the way authors/musicians/movie stars/sports players do for their work.
- stephencanon 14y ago
  > who in their right mind would leave Apple and join Palm, of all places? If I'm remembering right, Palm basically had a standing offer to double the salary of anyone who worked on the iPhone at that point in time. That looked pretty attractive to some people.

Pure tyranny.

I disagree. Poaching is frowned upon in every industry. That said, it is likely the Palm CEO wasn't aware that the 3 employees they hired were poached. He probably thought they came on their own. Which just goes on to show how out of touch with reality he must have been (ironically, since it was Jobs who was known for his Reality Distortion Field). I mean, who in their right mind would leave Apple and join Palm, of all places?

tlrobinson 14y ago
"I mean, who in their right mind would leave Apple and join Palm, of all places?" Keep in mind this exchange took place in 2007, soon after the very first iPhone was launched.
- TheAnimus 14y ago
  Maybe someone who was offered a better deal? Apple aren't exactly renowned for giving people a say in development, save a few royal elite. If your an untouchable at Apple, but are offered a good role at Palm, why not take it? It's the old sentiment of would you rather live in a decrepid shack on a fancy road, or a grand house on a normal one.
tolmasky 14y ago
There is nothing wrong with poaching (and it is certainly not illegal). It is frowned upon the same way as "talking about your salary" is frowned upon, and usually for the same reason: it leads to increased leverage for employees. By creating fictitious mores around these two activities, employees have less of an understanding of how well or badly they are being treated (less insight into the market for their talents). If you are making twice as much as me because I am a better negotiator, you may continue without a fuss for years if you never find out. Creating a culture about not talking about your salary is thus highly valuable to an employer. Similarly, if I am a good employee and too distracted by working, I may never realize that the going salary for a company is now X times what I make. Another company contacting me may make me aware of this, and thus it is equally beneficial to attach false stigma to this practice. There is (or was at some point) a similar amount of stigma about being disloyal to your employer (thankfully this has more or less disappeared). If it is so absurd that someone would leave Apple for Palm, then why did they care and threaten so much?
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  >>There is nothing wrong with poaching (and it is certainly not illegal). I've always found it unethical. It's similar to going to a girl who has a boyfriend and saying "hey baby, I know you're dating Mike, but I would be such a better boyfriend for you..." Whether or not you would actually be a better boyfriend, or whether it is good for the girl, is quite besides the point.
  - tolmasky 14y ago
    This line of reasoning requires the belief that a company has some special claim to you, which I find pretty distasteful. The company doesn't own you, you are not an indentured servant. You didn't sign a contract saying you'd work there for life. And more importantly, they will certainly fire you as soon as they need to. This is in no way analogous to a committed marital relationship, where the entire idea is lifetime exclusivity, or dating when you are theoretically working towards that.
    - enraged_camel 14y ago
      >>This line of reasoning requires the belief that a company has some special claim to you, which I find pretty distasteful. The company doesn't own you, you are not an indentured servant. Neither does your girlfriend. You are not an indentured servant to her. But the fact that you are dating her means that there is mutual trust on both sides, similar to that in an employee-employer arrangement. Poaching undermines that trust. edit: not sure why I'm getting downvoted. "Don't downvote simply because you disagree" was an unspoken rule, I thought? If you have a disagreement, voice it.
      - tolmasky 14y ago
        The employer-employee relationship is a contractual agreement regarding the exchange of money for labor. Are you going to argue that that is similar to dating? Hopefully not. The day I have to pay my girlfriend to be with me is the day I won't be offended if someone tries to "steal" her away. Employer-employee relationships are asymmetrical and purely business oriented. There is no "trust" on their side, I can guarantee you that - that is why they have you sign NDA's when you work on secret things (I have yet to find a company that just trusts you to keep it all secret). That is why it is so beneficial for them to rely on you believing in precisely these sorts of analogies: they have lawyers and contracts on their side, you are left with believing in "loyalty" and "trust". The fact that you equate contractual work between a corporation and a person to a loving relationship between two equals is quite demonstrative of my original point.
franze 14y ago
>Poaching is frowned upon in every industry. no, it's not. there is not an unlimited supply of good and experiences people on the market. if you wan't to succeed you have to get them, somehow. it's competing for ressources, it's a good thing. it's frowned upon only if somebody good is "poached away", but not if you convince somebody from the competition to work for you.
flyinRyan 14y ago
>Poaching is frowned upon in every industry by the companies who want to exploit people without worrying about competition. FTFY. Labor is a market exactly like any other. If I buy Chevrolet for years and then suddenly switch to Ford because they offer a better deal was I "poached"? Such a nonsensical concept. If you don't want people "poaching" your talent, pay them better. If you can't afford to then that's just the market efficiently allocating resources.
- walshemj 14y ago
  Amen brother its how capitalism works
- nathan_long 14y ago
  I agree, except for this: imagine Company X will pay twice as much for engineers who currently work for a competitor, specifically because they want to get the competitor's knowledge. The competitor can try non-complete clauses, but those may not hold up legally. They can threaten to sue former employees who betray secrets, but it's pretty hard not to use or at least be inspired by what you've learned in a past job. I don't see a good solution to this, but I can see why one would be upset by such "poaching." That said, "do what we want or we'll sue you for patent infringement" is an inexcusable tactic.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    >specifically because they want to get the competitor's knowledge. This is covered by NDAs and if you can prove these were violated you can get something done about it. I've seen this happen. >The competitor can try non-complete clauses, but those may not hold up legally. I should certainly hope they wouldn't be held up legally. It's bullshit. The worker has a chance to make twice as much money. They shouldn't get blocked because some company thinks we're still in slavery times. If it really matters so much to the company, they could just pay those workers double themselves (since, by definition, that's the market rate of those workers now). Moving is always a bit of a pain so if they're not already very unhappy they might even take less than double just to not have to move. >They can threaten to sue former employees who betray secrets If they can prove the NDA was violated they will sue and they will win. >but it's pretty hard not to use or at least be inspired by what you've learned in a past job. What you learn on the job is yours. This is known and completely accepted. If this were not the case then a Senior programmer would make the same money as a fresh-out-of-college Junior programmer. You may find this extreme but some of us believe a programmer should get some kind of residuals for anything they write for a company the way authors/musicians/movie stars/sports players do for their work.
stephencanon 14y ago
> who in their right mind would leave Apple and join Palm, of all places? If I'm remembering right, Palm basically had a standing offer to double the salary of anyone who worked on the iPhone at that point in time. That looked pretty attractive to some people.