24 ms·

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 impro

by 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.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- sgustard 12y ago
  There's no practical difference. If I hire Ben away from you, then protest "he came to us! we didn't poach him!" it matters not one bit to our now shattered relationship.
  - balls187 12y ago
    That's a great point, but seems like the CEO (or whatever principal is shattering the relationship) isn't being mature, nor thinking objectively.
    - lawnchair_larry 12y ago
      And how many entry level recruiting employees or their immediate managers do you think even want to have this conversation with someone like Steve Jobs? No single candidate is going to be worth having to defend yourself to the CEO, whether it was unsolicited or not. Practically speaking, these people are going to be the untouchables.

by undata 12y ago

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.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sgustard 12y ago
There's no practical difference. If I hire Ben away from you, then protest "he came to us! we didn't poach him!" it matters not one bit to our now shattered relationship.
- balls187 12y ago
  That's a great point, but seems like the CEO (or whatever principal is shattering the relationship) isn't being mature, nor thinking objectively.
  - lawnchair_larry 12y ago
    And how many entry level recruiting employees or their immediate managers do you think even want to have this conversation with someone like Steve Jobs? No single candidate is going to be worth having to defend yourself to the CEO, whether it was unsolicited or not. Practically speaking, these people are going to be the untouchables.