I'll concede that I could be wrong in the infinite case. It's hard to know exactly what would happen in an infinity. And the real problem that these companies are trying to address is one of scarcity rather than one of incompetent head-hunting.
Let me ask you a simple question. Would you be against no-poaching agreement if the process made candidates able to apply without listing their anti-poaching-agreement employer (e.g. Google) and thus without making it possible for a recruiter to go from doing their job to letting Google do their job and reaping the benefits?
It's not a simple question because I think the premise is wrong.
Because it sounds like what they agreed to is "don't call random numbers in mountain view and offer them the same salary, plus half of whatever time you save having to find someone that wasn't pre-qualified by Google."
I don't believe that's what the agreements were about. To my understanding, they were aimed at preventing calls to employees whose linked-in profiles had interesting profiles, a good match for the position, but currently worked at a no-poach competitor, with the goal being to prevent stealing the really good employees by offering them much higher salaries. Completely independent of the recruiter costs to my understanding, and all about avoiding wage runups.
I only used ad hominem in kind. And I responded quite reasonably to people who only misunderstood my initial claim. The escalation from there (and the desire to 'prove' me wrong) isn't on me.
First, I initially just answered the people who misinterpreted my first statement. To the extent their misunderstanding was valid, my response clarifying my point was equally valid.
Second, to claim it backfired would require some negative consequence for me, but it was all positive for me. There were a handful of negative mods, but the net was overwhelmingly positive (about +20 overall for the thread). So far as i can tell the only other cost was my time, and I was entertained, so I didn't mind investing that.
Oh no doubt about that. Sorry if I unintentionally implied otherwise! I only meant to point out that he could accomplish it, and legally he could probably get away with it. My point was only that he had substantial blackmail power that he could, in fact, leverage against them.
First, poaching is illegal precisely because the wild supply is not infinite. If it were, no one would care.
Second, costing another manager a $75 qualification is not the same as stealing it from him, and I by no means agree that they are morally equivalent.
Third, this version of poaching is happening precisely because the talented are actually fairly rare rather than infinite. It isn't just a matter of qualification of the infinite resource.
Fourth, employee loyalty is quantifiable on the resume. If you prefer an employee who will stay with you longer rather than jump ship for a higher salary, hire someone who stays in each of their past jobs for a longer period of time. This is a place where your starbucks intern/grunt scenario significantly departed from the one actually being discussed: the employees in the real scenario under discussion have histories that can be analyzed by potential employers. Also, if you want to maintain better employee loyalty, do invest in them, and give them raises that keep up with wage escalation.
And I have never worked in a place like you describe, so I may be unfairly discounting the pain. I actually work in software engineering, where stints at a given company average about 4 years, not one week. And since I'm a somewhat influential guy, I'm usually able to get policies in place that encourage employee retention. My current place of work averages closer to 6 years retention (and probably better, but I can't prove that, I've only been here 7.5 years).
It's the prisoners dilemma. Sure, if everyone votes out the republicans and democrats, it would be best. But if you're a democrat, a republican in office is likely a legitimately worse outcome for you. And if you're a republican, a democrat in office is about a 1% chance of being worse for you. So the temptation to vote for one of the more-likely-to-win options is strong. If you really want people to change their voting habits, you pretty much need to change the voting system (to ranked choice or the like).
Meh. It looks like almost everyone actually understood it fine, just a couple of cranks didn't who read a little too fast and decided they'd try to put someone down to make themselves feel good, and had it backfire on them.
First, I think a decision to treat your competitors' employees as their untouchable property is pretty clearly wrong. That's promoting less freedom for those employees, edging closer to slavery in other words.
Second, if I discount the first point, I'd then argue that a unilateral policy would be fine. It's the collusion aspect that interferes with the free labor market that is even more wrong.
But there are knock-on effects here. Those un-escalated positions cause lower level developers to get paid less as well. Plus maybe they can't pay their nannies enough, or maybe (like me) can't quite afford health insurance for the nanny. It has consequences that reach beyond the 'well compensated'. (And I put that in quotes, because even a lot of mid-tier googlers impacted by this are not making enough to retire on, so those folks are going to hurt pretty directly because of this. Working in your very old age sucks.)
Indeed, I clearly should have dumbed it down for the audience. I do accept fault for thinking I could just write what I meant in a simple way, and not spell it out in painful detail for the audience. My mistake.
I've never done anything close to this bad. To the best of my knowledge, the company I work for has never done anything close to this bad. Lots of people I know, to the best of my knowledge, have never done anything close to this bad. To me, evil is indeed a line that pretty much defines you when you cross it. Redemption is possible, but that's harder for organizations than for individuals.
Murder is more evil, I'd agree. But cannibalism? Unless you meant murder FOR cannibalism. But cannibalism by itself? Perfectly ethical and moral. Just risky.
Filing articles of incorporation is an inherent declaration of an intent to be evil unless you publish something to the contrary, like incorporation as a non-profit, or a company directive to not be evil.
They are almost universally calling employee-owned cell phones. They have no way to know if you are in the office or at home in advance of the call. They might make a reasonable guess, but they could still be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll concede that I could be wrong in the infinite case. It's hard to know exactly what would happen in an infinity. And the real problem that these companies are trying to address is one of scarcity rather than one of incompetent head-hunting.
Let me ask you a simple question. Would you be against no-poaching agreement if the process made candidates able to apply without listing their anti-poaching-agreement employer (e.g. Google) and thus without making it possible for a recruiter to go from doing their job to letting Google do their job and reaping the benefits?
It's not a simple question because I think the premise is wrong.
Because it sounds like what they agreed to is "don't call random numbers in mountain view and offer them the same salary, plus half of whatever time you save having to find someone that wasn't pre-qualified by Google."
I don't believe that's what the agreements were about. To my understanding, they were aimed at preventing calls to employees whose linked-in profiles had interesting profiles, a good match for the position, but currently worked at a no-poach competitor, with the goal being to prevent stealing the really good employees by offering them much higher salaries. Completely independent of the recruiter costs to my understanding, and all about avoiding wage runups.
I only used ad hominem in kind. And I responded quite reasonably to people who only misunderstood my initial claim. The escalation from there (and the desire to 'prove' me wrong) isn't on me.
Well:
First, I initially just answered the people who misinterpreted my first statement. To the extent their misunderstanding was valid, my response clarifying my point was equally valid.
Second, to claim it backfired would require some negative consequence for me, but it was all positive for me. There were a handful of negative mods, but the net was overwhelmingly positive (about +20 overall for the thread). So far as i can tell the only other cost was my time, and I was entertained, so I didn't mind investing that.
Oh no doubt about that. Sorry if I unintentionally implied otherwise! I only meant to point out that he could accomplish it, and legally he could probably get away with it. My point was only that he had substantial blackmail power that he could, in fact, leverage against them.
So I disagree on a few points:
First, poaching is illegal precisely because the wild supply is not infinite. If it were, no one would care.
Second, costing another manager a $75 qualification is not the same as stealing it from him, and I by no means agree that they are morally equivalent.
Third, this version of poaching is happening precisely because the talented are actually fairly rare rather than infinite. It isn't just a matter of qualification of the infinite resource.
Fourth, employee loyalty is quantifiable on the resume. If you prefer an employee who will stay with you longer rather than jump ship for a higher salary, hire someone who stays in each of their past jobs for a longer period of time. This is a place where your starbucks intern/grunt scenario significantly departed from the one actually being discussed: the employees in the real scenario under discussion have histories that can be analyzed by potential employers. Also, if you want to maintain better employee loyalty, do invest in them, and give them raises that keep up with wage escalation.
And I have never worked in a place like you describe, so I may be unfairly discounting the pain. I actually work in software engineering, where stints at a given company average about 4 years, not one week. And since I'm a somewhat influential guy, I'm usually able to get policies in place that encourage employee retention. My current place of work averages closer to 6 years retention (and probably better, but I can't prove that, I've only been here 7.5 years).
It's the prisoners dilemma. Sure, if everyone votes out the republicans and democrats, it would be best. But if you're a democrat, a republican in office is likely a legitimately worse outcome for you. And if you're a republican, a democrat in office is about a 1% chance of being worse for you. So the temptation to vote for one of the more-likely-to-win options is strong. If you really want people to change their voting habits, you pretty much need to change the voting system (to ranked choice or the like).
Meh. It looks like almost everyone actually understood it fine, just a couple of cranks didn't who read a little too fast and decided they'd try to put someone down to make themselves feel good, and had it backfire on them.
Nope, there have, in fact, been a number of such stories and if you care to research it you'll find my position is completely self consistent.
If the facts are wrong i'd be happy to retract my claims as well.
I have two issues with that.
First, I think a decision to treat your competitors' employees as their untouchable property is pretty clearly wrong. That's promoting less freedom for those employees, edging closer to slavery in other words.
Second, if I discount the first point, I'd then argue that a unilateral policy would be fine. It's the collusion aspect that interferes with the free labor market that is even more wrong.
But there are knock-on effects here. Those un-escalated positions cause lower level developers to get paid less as well. Plus maybe they can't pay their nannies enough, or maybe (like me) can't quite afford health insurance for the nanny. It has consequences that reach beyond the 'well compensated'. (And I put that in quotes, because even a lot of mid-tier googlers impacted by this are not making enough to retire on, so those folks are going to hurt pretty directly because of this. Working in your very old age sucks.)
Well, me, the handful of people agreeing with me, and the moderators.
That's not Ad Hominem. Seriously.
My god, I've had like 40 AC replies, and this was the only reasoned and interesting one. Thank you. Your points are well taken.
My net moderation for the day was overwhelmingly positive. About +20 roughly.
Indeed, I clearly should have dumbed it down for the audience. I do accept fault for thinking I could just write what I meant in a simple way, and not spell it out in painful detail for the audience. My mistake.
I single out Google because they're the one player with a motto of 'Don't be evil'. I expect it from all the rest.
Not truth, but victory for sure.
My moderation for the day was net positive by a long shot.
I've never done anything close to this bad. To the best of my knowledge, the company I work for has never done anything close to this bad. Lots of people I know, to the best of my knowledge, have never done anything close to this bad. To me, evil is indeed a line that pretty much defines you when you cross it. Redemption is possible, but that's harder for organizations than for individuals.
Murder is more evil, I'd agree. But cannibalism? Unless you meant murder FOR cannibalism. But cannibalism by itself? Perfectly ethical and moral. Just risky.
Seems like you're the one crying. You're the one resorting to Ad Hominem and shouty letters. You seem quite upset.
Filing articles of incorporation is an inherent declaration of an intent to be evil unless you publish something to the contrary, like incorporation as a non-profit, or a company directive to not be evil.
They are almost universally calling employee-owned cell phones. They have no way to know if you are in the office or at home in advance of the call. They might make a reasonable guess, but they could still be wrong.
First to resort to Ad Hominem loses. Sorry.
I'm pretty sure he was threatening litigation over something perfectly legal (e.g. patents) if they did not collude.