4 ms·

I wouldn't consider the non-poaching agreement unethical... Not in the least. (though such a statement won't be popular here for obvious reasons!) Nor is threa

I wouldn't consider the non-poaching agreement unethical... Not in the least. (though such a statement won't be popular here for obvious reasons!) Nor is threatening other companies with legal action...

soperj 13y ago
They're illegal. Completely unethical. It's not popular because it's flat out wrong, and hurts everyone working for those companies & our entire industry as a whole.
nitrogen 13y ago
Anti-poaching agreements are deceitful and manipulative against employees. They harm many for the benefit of the few. Would you mind explaining how you find that ethically acceptable? What would you find unethical? Surely there's a line somewhere.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  No, such agreements needn't be deceitful nor manipulative. "No poach" agreements don't preclude me, as an employee, from leaving one firm and moving to another - they only preclude the partner firms from actively seeking out one another's employees. If an "extreme no poach" agreement does, however, limit my future choices, then such information should be disclosed to me prior to employment. Even this more extreme form isn't inherently deceitful if disclosed. If not disclosed, then it would be unethical. Note that California (and likely US Federal) law makes no poach agreements of any form illegal, thus making disclosure quite tricky. Of course, their illegality also makes it much easier for partner firms to cheat. Thus, under the circumstances, the "soft no poach" agreement would be ethical: It requires no employee disclosure to remain ethical. The "extreme no poach" agreement, however, can not be rendered ethical in the current legal environment.
  - deveac 13y ago
    >"No poach" agreements don't preclude me, as an employee, from leaving one firm and moving to another - they only preclude the partner firms from actively seeking out one another's employees. In reality, the no-poach agreements Jobs and others held expressly forbid firms from hiring the other's employees even if the position was sought solely by the employee herself.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      Well there you go.

soperj 13y ago

They're illegal. Completely unethical. It's not popular because it's flat out wrong, and hurts everyone working for those companies & our entire industry as a whole.

nitrogen 13y ago

Anti-poaching agreements are deceitful and manipulative against employees. They harm many for the benefit of the few. Would you mind explaining how you find that ethically acceptable? What would you find unethical? Surely there's a line somewhere.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
No, such agreements needn't be deceitful nor manipulative. "No poach" agreements don't preclude me, as an employee, from leaving one firm and moving to another - they only preclude the partner firms from actively seeking out one another's employees. If an "extreme no poach" agreement does, however, limit my future choices, then such information should be disclosed to me prior to employment. Even this more extreme form isn't inherently deceitful if disclosed. If not disclosed, then it would be unethical. Note that California (and likely US Federal) law makes no poach agreements of any form illegal, thus making disclosure quite tricky. Of course, their illegality also makes it much easier for partner firms to cheat. Thus, under the circumstances, the "soft no poach" agreement would be ethical: It requires no employee disclosure to remain ethical. The "extreme no poach" agreement, however, can not be rendered ethical in the current legal environment.
- deveac 13y ago
  >"No poach" agreements don't preclude me, as an employee, from leaving one firm and moving to another - they only preclude the partner firms from actively seeking out one another's employees. In reality, the no-poach agreements Jobs and others held expressly forbid firms from hiring the other's employees even if the position was sought solely by the employee herself.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    Well there you go.