Startup Uses Eggs to Poach Employees from Facebook, Google
freshtechapps.com
freshtechapps.com
Employees out there: don't feel guilty about leaving a company, always find what's best for you - not the company.
As if competition on the buyer-side of the labor market was morally suspect... Steve Jobs would have approved of the sentiment!
It's not the article, it's the company themselves.
At least it's more credible to me than a conspiration about manipulating the tech masses into disliking poaching.
There's nothing to accuse - nobody's doing anything illegal or even unethical. A more appropriate line would be "[BC] has previously succeeded in hiring talent away from Google[0]", etc. "Accused" is the objectionable word - you generally don't accuse someone of something positive or commonplace.
It's similar to the effect when newspapers have headlines on how "Snowden's actions" have caused people to be more suspicious of the government. (His actions aren't the reason people are suspicious; they're just the reason people know about the facts that are what really make them suspicious)
[0] or, if they want to keep the word "poach" since the pun is part of the story, "[BC] has previously succeeded in poaching talent away from Google", etc.
Like a fake news coverage for a super villain.
Or perhaps I'm super blind for not seeing the obvious attempt at discrediting the practice.
I am, however, a little put off by the term "poached", which BigCommerce is actively using in their campaign. It implies the sentiment that these people are simply a quarry being hunted as a prize rather people, of their own free will, deciding that the grass is greener elsewhere. Language matters.
Really, unless we think of ourselves as deer being stolen from the local land owner, we should stop using that word.
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eng/
Y work for 1 startup, work for 50K - Software Eng (PHP, Ruby) Product
Are you down with OLTP?- Database Engineer (MySql, Innodb)
Are you SaaS-y enough? - System Engineer (Linux, Perl, PHP, Ruby)
Are you ob-cess!d?- Front End Engineer (HTML, CSS, Javascript)
Engineers: Last day to RSVP here for Happy Hour at our new SoMa digs!
Engineers: RSVP here for our Happy Hour at our new SoMa digs!
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/web/index100.html
Rich and Sexy- Front End Engineer (HTML, CSS, Javascript)
The headlines are horrible.
The postings are horrible...
We are SoMa's hottest new startup and we are building a team of badass engineers to help us take the world's fastest growing e-commerce solution to the next level.
The image (which doesn't show anyone working) is horrible...http://i1286.photobucket.com/albums/a605/Bigcommerce/CL-Ad2_...
The recruiting video (with swearing!) is horrible...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uibkWc26MgQ&hd=1
These guys have been posting this crap nonstop on Craigslist for a while so I'm not surprised at all to see them trolling bus stops.
http://recode.net/2014/04/02/tim-cook-turns-up-the-heat-comi...
Edit: this, too, complete with the same photos: http://mashable.com/2014/04/04/startup-eggs-recruiting/
Blogspam.
Seriously though, to your point, why do you say "but"? Are the ones who think of leaving somehow less valuable than the ones don't think of leaving? In my mind, those who never think of leaving probably tend to be the weaker talent. That could just be my unsubstantiated bias, but either way, I think the point is that they all got hired by Facebook/Google at some point which is a pretty good signal as far as tech signals go.
It's entirely possible I use the word "but" too much or that I don't need a conjunction there at all - would two shorter sentences be better?
Or maybe I'm just a butt?
I think it's really hard to pinpoint the moment in my own head when an idea like leaving my job first crosses my mind, probably even harder for an abstract class of people such as Google or Facebook employees. To me, poaching is more concrete, it means going after someone you know works at a specific place.
Taking applicants from un-employed job seekers was traditional "hiring". World has moved on, presumably tho. Switching contexts, ou would be "poaching" someones significant other (~negative connotation). vs Just "picking up" a single person you met at a bar (~fair game connotation).
TLDR english is a loaded language
Company X hiring an inbound lead that happens to be from company Y: not poaching.
Company X hiring a recruiter-based lead that happens to be from company Y: not poaching.
Company X instructing recruiters to draw up a list of employees of company Y and target them individually by persuading them to leave their jobs: poaching.
The #3 case here is probably the best reference here for a definition of contemporary usage.
The frission around the ~negative connotation may be hard to understand without the context of entymology. Poaching indeed has a long history in the English language and its "literal" meaning involves the taking of "other's property" by way of hunting. The nexus of "others property" here is important. Originally this was birthrights to game and chattle rights to spouse and since this was before the industrial revolution, employment would be similarly duty bound.
So, to poach is to hunt, or to head-hunt, against other's formal (eg contractual) rights. It has been along time since then and the term is now idiomatic. So, if you want to understand the "subtlety" or the "frission", it probably helps to understand the entymology.
But, as noted above, this doesn't help you to understand contemporary usage as much as somthing more detailed on that subject. So, defer to the above comment.
This is a good example of HN comments getting all the points out on the table from different views.
_________________
+ Years ago, when head-hunting was "executive recruiting", most of these folks would have been under contract, for example. Or be partners in a law firm or bank. Again, the world has moved on and recruiting now is not limited to high-level execs, or people in company careers that might otherwise be 30 years long or whatevs.
Some of this stuff is archaic.
Hunting/Fishing laws in europe were restricted to the nobility for hundreds of years.
And at the same time: "Most European noblewomen were party to chattel marriages" {etc}
Anyways, that's all different than poaching in Africa today, for example (personal vs state "property"), but it's likely the source of the term... so i agree.
For example, if someone leaves the company, and then there is a concerted effort to recruit other members of that team or based on their recommendation that is poaching. If you've signed an agreement that forbids this, and you actively take part in it, I think it is wrong; otherwise it is fine.
Alternatively, if you've engaged a companies services and then try and hire away the people doing the work to disintermediate the service providing compnay, that would probably count as poaching in my book too.
I definitely think some business use of the word poaching is intended to stir up the idea that some sort of trespass has occurred, but language also tends to like such cute usages (regardless of the presence of an underlying agenda).
Obviously, they are going to reply that in a situation where they are together with their co-workers.
Seems like there has to be techniques with better success rate than that...
If this comment was better phrased, we might have started a stimulating discussion as to the merits of egg sandwiches.