Isn't that similar to what Google/Apple/etc were doing recently, and were rightfully lambasted for?
My employer does not own me, they should have absolutely no say over what company can offer me a new position.
In a hypothetical situation where you have two companies, lets call them Company A and Company B, who are in talks for an acquisition. If Company A is huge and is potentially an acquirer then Company B would be it's acquisition target. Company A is going to learn a lot about Company B to consider purchasing them. Company A could walk away at any time with all the salary information of Company B's employees.
Company B should have the right for protection in such a high risk situation. A non-solicit agreement that covers employees would prevent Company A from approaching, with the intention of hiring, Company B employees for a period of time that both firms agree upon.
Employees of Company B are more than welcome to approach Company A about jobs. Company B employees may even get a raise since Company A would know how much they are earning. However, Company A would want documented proof to show that the employee of Company B came to them. As they cannot approach the employees of Company B during the previously agreed upon period.
The system needs to protect employers like it protects employees. Not everyone runs a high margin billion dollar company.
I don't think I see how this would not hurt the employees. Seems like a classic startup management move that screws over the employees who are already taking pay cuts and huge life risks to make the startup successful.
For a startup, losing a key employee is a big deal and a big risk. A non solicitation agreement doesn't prevent the employee from applying for a job at the bigger company, but merely allow the startup to be more open t o a potential competitor.
Sounds like a merit-based scenario to me.
Simply reading through HN for several years, it seems pretty obvious to me that many startups view employees and "theirs". There is no scenario where I would hurt my future opportunities simply so I don't hurt my (sinking) company's.
I owe nothing more than the agreed-upon work for money to my current company, and watching out for #1 is what has been so successful for me these past several years.
A smart developer would stay at current company if she truly believed there was a successful acquisition on the horizon. If she leaves with someone else, that's just the free market talking.
Let's say you're selling, I'm buying, and we reach a tentative agreement for $100M. While you're winding down your other options I talk to five of your key people and hire them each for $2M. The next morning I start in fresh: Without those people our new offer is $50M. By the way that's a generous offer, part of the team works for us so you're worth even less to other acquirers. And hey, what if the press got wind that you were trying to sell and your key people were leaving. Sounds like a company in trouble.
You might say that's an asshole thing that nobody would actually do but there's a reason the poster up top suggested covering it.
Two differences:
* It would be a one-sided no-poaching agreement (or it should be).
* An individual start-up does not have close to the same level of market power as a large corporation so the effects of no poaching agreements on the market as a whole would be minimized.
It isn't the same for the same reason why low cap startups with a lot of competition are immune from anti-trust violations no matter what their behavior.
In practice this often looks like an agreement to only speak with a defined, very small number of people at the target and to absolutely not initiate conversations with anyone else.
If Acme Startup Inc is quietly exploring a sale to Google, and coincidentally one of its engineers drops a resume to Google's recruiters, she can still go work for Google, but rest assured that Google will document the hell out of who-contacted-who-when.
In any case, non-hire agreements aren't forever.