5 ms·
Oxford English dictionary lists the following definition of "poach": "take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way". seems reasonable to me, the connotations
by catshirt 12y ago
Oxford English dictionary lists the following definition of "poach": "take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way". seems reasonable to me, the connotations are your own.
Company A takes or acquires Company B's talent. it's not about Company B owning the person, it's about Company B possessing an employee, the abstract.
- droopyEyelids 12y agoBoth 'take' and 'acquire' imply possession. RyanDrake is making the point that companies do not possess or own their employees. To use language implying they do is insulting and demeaning.
- catshirt 12y agosorry, i already edited my response to address just this (so to readers your response might not seem as relevant as it was). the technicalities of your argument imply that it is false for any company to say "we have X employees" and it is offensive for them to say "we have the best talent in the valley". the only truth would be "our company has no employees". if you feel that way, at least you're logically consistent. it just feels disingenuous to me.
- rayiner 12y agoYou've read out the "unfair or clandestine way" part in your last sentence.
- catshirt 12y agounfair or clandestine is in the eyes of the beholder
- kbenson 12y agoFrom the sources I'm seeing, poaching is generally defined as "illegal hunting". One of the major points of the top level comment is that using the word poaching carries the connotation of illegality. I agree, and I think it primes the reader for what to expect from the article before they've read it (or in the cases where someone only sees the headline, sets their expectations unless corrected).