4 ms·

Seems taken out of context. Do not hire is different than do not poach. The wisdom I subscribe to is, if you have common investors, it's bad form to actively

Seems taken out of context. Do not hire is different than do not poach. The wisdom I subscribe to is, if you have common investors, it's bad form to actively poach from portfolio companies. For companies that are later stage, it's bad form to poach key employee's from portfolio companies. Do Not Hire agreements between companies, however, seem unreasonable, except when there is clear cause for conflict of interest.

bkeroack 12y ago
There is a difference between active poaching and simply getting a resume (or some other expression of interest) from somebody for an open position. a) If you get sent a resume in response to an open req and you reject them based solely on the current employer of the applicant being a "friendly company" ("do not hire" list), that is illegal and wrong. b) If you realize the applicant is from a "friendly company" and so you make a subtle threat along the lines of: "We are going to call your current employer to get a reference check before we decide to extend any offer, are you sure that's ok with you?" (also recommended in Horowitz's book), it's also wrong and unfair. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if that is overtly illegal however.
- tptacek 12y ago
  It is lawful to maintain a "do-not-hire" list of companies from which you disqualify candidates. It is possibly even lawful to do that with the intent of avoiding poaching and ill will. What's definitely not lawful is to conspire with the companies on that list to determine its makeup.
- argonaut 12y ago
  How is that a subtle threat? That's not a threat at all. That's just being upfront about it. And if you don't like that you can tell them: "No that's not okay with me" and then walk away.
undata 12y ago
Your comment is spoken from a perspective that favors the investors... not the worker who is seeking better employment. Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them. In this regard the tech industry is no more progressive than any other, and that's incredibly disappointing. We're supposed to be such an intelligent bunch.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  Not convinced this helps the investors either, if the employee is staying within their broader portfolio of companies. Yes, he may cost a bit more, but presumably he's moving to do more valuable and / or productive work, so the uptick in salary should pay for itself several times over.
  - cma 12y ago
    Let's say all he does is leverage your offer to get a raise at his current job. That raise comes out of investor dividends.
    - codeonfire 12y ago
      Lets say the price of electricity goes up. That comes out of investor dividends also.
      - cma 12y ago
        I wasn't saying that he wouldn't be right to or they shouldn't pay market rates. I was just refuting the idea that an employee working at a company in a portfolio that interviews at another company in the same portfolio could only do so at a benefit to portfolio shareholders. That's really naive.
- balls187 12y ago
  Yes, my comment favors investors, by way of favoring companies (and the potential return on investment), but it does not (in my opinion) hinder employees. I believe you misunderstood my point based on the following comment: > Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them I support the "Do Not Poach" rule. "Do Not Poach" does not prevent workers from seeking employment. It means, me as an employer, will not actively solicit employees of other companies if we have shared investors (given the size and complexity of the investments). "Do Not Hire" on the otherhand, seems to be what you are taking umbrage with, and I concur. Employees should (generally speaking) be allowed to seek employment opportunities without back-room deals preventing that.
phaker 12y ago
Seems taken out of context. In a [post] on his blog Horowitz describes a scenario in which a person currently employed at a company that is "important" to you comes in for an interview. The recommended course of action is to 1: block the hire, 2: inform said company about it. There are two things i just can't agree with at all: * The part about informing the current employer: about 50% of the time it will end with ruining the next few weeks or months of his/her life. I.e. getting them fired, with ruined prospects of getting the job they took the risk for. Note that at e.g. apple the standard procedure when they find out that an employee is looking for a job is to escort them out of the building right then and there. * Note it's not about "poaching", he explains thoroughly that it applies to people who ask for an interview on their own accord too. If you don't want to read the whole thing, at least read this gem: It is important to note that just about all of these kinds of policies violate the Right to Work laws in California. Specifically, if you block a hire based on this kind of policy and the employee loses their job and cannot find work, your company is liable for his wages. As a result, the business relationship with the other company must be extremely important for you to employ any kind of “hands off” policy. said blog [post]: http://www.bhorowitz.com/is_it_ok_to_hire_people_from_your_friend_s_company http://www.bhorowitz.com/is_it_ok_to_hire_people_from_your_f...
- 001sky 12y ago
  You are taking it out of context, though. BH is basically talking about an issue that could kill your startup. Whether or not you like that reality, there is a real risk that the other company will retaliate for something they see as an adverse breech of trust. Note that logic: the problem is not with the company ben is advising. The issue is at the third part company. If that company decides to "go nuclear" and sever all ties because you poached/goaded or otherwise got involved in their "interal politics" (note: this is not a per-se issue of math/economics/money), bad things might happen to your firm. CEOs of startups have a fiduciary duty to avoid "bad things", and even that choice is a catch-22 (ie, two bad things...) you pick the worst-bad one. And that is what he is saying. In other words, he's talking about something that is a real-world problem. If you want to vent out about the issue, it really sits with the third part company. They are typically the one with all the power in the situation. Example: Startup A had 80% of its business tied to a single company, BigCo B. Like it or not, the CEO of startup A needs to avoid a situation where the CEO of BigCo B comes to the conclusion that he won't do business with A becaus of Politics (note: not economics). Whether or not poaching is politically sensitive (or offensive) and/or warrants this type of "nuclear" response, is a function of many thing. But none of that is BH's responsibility in the larger world. This dynamics is something that has played out for millenia from kings and queens and royal courts to how the predisent and Y combinator select their staff and senior leadership. At a certain level of the game, its all about trust. And polticial power is essentially a combination of trust and goodwill. And its easy to disolve and can reak havok on any company of any size when systemically undermined. So you need to pay attention to it. In other words, this is a much bigger issue. The tack of trying to shoot or lynch the messenger is sort of misplaced. Because the startup is the employer and may have a power asymmetry with a potential hire; but that startup is in itself subject to potential power assymetries at much higher levels. (This goes for pissing off BOD members, VCs, and Key clients alike...maybe it suck/isn't fair...etc... but the reality is you need to pick your battes as a small company. And picking fights with the consituents you need to help you build your biz is ~dysfunctional and needs to be understood as such.)
balls187 12y ago
I am really quite surprised at the number of downvotes to this has received. From +3 to now -4.

bkeroack 12y ago

There is a difference between active poaching and simply getting a resume (or some other expression of interest) from somebody for an open position. a) If you get sent a resume in response to an open req and you reject them based solely on the current employer of the applicant being a "friendly company" ("do not hire" list), that is illegal and wrong. b) If you realize the applicant is from a "friendly company" and so you make a subtle threat along the lines of: "We are going to call your current employer to get a reference check before we decide to extend any offer, are you sure that's ok with you?" (also recommended in Horowitz's book), it's also wrong and unfair. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if that is overtly illegal however.

tptacek 12y ago
It is lawful to maintain a "do-not-hire" list of companies from which you disqualify candidates. It is possibly even lawful to do that with the intent of avoiding poaching and ill will. What's definitely not lawful is to conspire with the companies on that list to determine its makeup.
argonaut 12y ago
How is that a subtle threat? That's not a threat at all. That's just being upfront about it. And if you don't like that you can tell them: "No that's not okay with me" and then walk away.

undata 12y ago

Your comment is spoken from a perspective that favors the investors... not the worker who is seeking better employment. Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them. In this regard the tech industry is no more progressive than any other, and that's incredibly disappointing. We're supposed to be such an intelligent bunch.

alexqgb 12y ago
Not convinced this helps the investors either, if the employee is staying within their broader portfolio of companies. Yes, he may cost a bit more, but presumably he's moving to do more valuable and / or productive work, so the uptick in salary should pay for itself several times over.
- cma 12y ago
  Let's say all he does is leverage your offer to get a raise at his current job. That raise comes out of investor dividends.
  - codeonfire 12y ago
    Lets say the price of electricity goes up. That comes out of investor dividends also.
    - cma 12y ago
      I wasn't saying that he wouldn't be right to or they shouldn't pay market rates. I was just refuting the idea that an employee working at a company in a portfolio that interviews at another company in the same portfolio could only do so at a benefit to portfolio shareholders. That's really naive.
balls187 12y ago
Yes, my comment favors investors, by way of favoring companies (and the potential return on investment), but it does not (in my opinion) hinder employees. I believe you misunderstood my point based on the following comment: > Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them I support the "Do Not Poach" rule. "Do Not Poach" does not prevent workers from seeking employment. It means, me as an employer, will not actively solicit employees of other companies if we have shared investors (given the size and complexity of the investments). "Do Not Hire" on the otherhand, seems to be what you are taking umbrage with, and I concur. Employees should (generally speaking) be allowed to seek employment opportunities without back-room deals preventing that.

phaker 12y ago

Seems taken out of context. In a [post] on his blog Horowitz describes a scenario in which a person currently employed at a company that is "important" to you comes in for an interview. The recommended course of action is to 1: block the hire, 2: inform said company about it. There are two things i just can't agree with at all: * The part about informing the current employer: about 50% of the time it will end with ruining the next few weeks or months of his/her life. I.e. getting them fired, with ruined prospects of getting the job they took the risk for. Note that at e.g. apple the standard procedure when they find out that an employee is looking for a job is to escort them out of the building right then and there. * Note it's not about "poaching", he explains thoroughly that it applies to people who ask for an interview on their own accord too. If you don't want to read the whole thing, at least read this gem: It is important to note that just about all of these kinds of policies violate the Right to Work laws in California. Specifically, if you block a hire based on this kind of policy and the employee loses their job and cannot find work, your company is liable for his wages. As a result, the business relationship with the other company must be extremely important for you to employ any kind of “hands off” policy. said blog [post]: http://www.bhorowitz.com/is_it_ok_to_hire_people_from_your_friend_s_company http://www.bhorowitz.com/is_it_ok_to_hire_people_from_your_f...

001sky 12y ago
You are taking it out of context, though. BH is basically talking about an issue that could kill your startup. Whether or not you like that reality, there is a real risk that the other company will retaliate for something they see as an adverse breech of trust. Note that logic: the problem is not with the company ben is advising. The issue is at the third part company. If that company decides to "go nuclear" and sever all ties because you poached/goaded or otherwise got involved in their "interal politics" (note: this is not a per-se issue of math/economics/money), bad things might happen to your firm. CEOs of startups have a fiduciary duty to avoid "bad things", and even that choice is a catch-22 (ie, two bad things...) you pick the worst-bad one. And that is what he is saying. In other words, he's talking about something that is a real-world problem. If you want to vent out about the issue, it really sits with the third part company. They are typically the one with all the power in the situation. Example: Startup A had 80% of its business tied to a single company, BigCo B. Like it or not, the CEO of startup A needs to avoid a situation where the CEO of BigCo B comes to the conclusion that he won't do business with A becaus of Politics (note: not economics). Whether or not poaching is politically sensitive (or offensive) and/or warrants this type of "nuclear" response, is a function of many thing. But none of that is BH's responsibility in the larger world. This dynamics is something that has played out for millenia from kings and queens and royal courts to how the predisent and Y combinator select their staff and senior leadership. At a certain level of the game, its all about trust. And polticial power is essentially a combination of trust and goodwill. And its easy to disolve and can reak havok on any company of any size when systemically undermined. So you need to pay attention to it. In other words, this is a much bigger issue. The tack of trying to shoot or lynch the messenger is sort of misplaced. Because the startup is the employer and may have a power asymmetry with a potential hire; but that startup is in itself subject to potential power assymetries at much higher levels. (This goes for pissing off BOD members, VCs, and Key clients alike...maybe it suck/isn't fair...etc... but the reality is you need to pick your battes as a small company. And picking fights with the consituents you need to help you build your biz is ~dysfunctional and needs to be understood as such.)

balls187 12y ago

I am really quite surprised at the number of downvotes to this has received. From +3 to now -4.