Item — HN Reader

Does it really matter whether it's on "company resources," in any sense other than the outmoded legal sense? Or company time? Perhaps for termination, but it's not against the law to hurt your employer, nor should it be.

Perhaps you may want to refresh your perspective by remembering some of the times managers have colluded to keep wages down. "Poaching" is such a ridiculous term for "offering somebody better rewards for their work and them accepting."

Stealing proprietary information is another story though, let's not make this whole thing binary.

3 comments

> Does it really matter whether it's on "company resources," in any sense other than the outmoded legal sense? Or company time? Perhaps for termination, but it's not against the law to hurt your employer, nor should it be.

As was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, even California's Labor Code contains such a provision:

“An employee who has any business to transact on his own account, similar to that entrusted to him by his employer, shall always give the preference to the business of the employer.”

> Perhaps you may want to refresh your perspective by remembering some of the times managers have colluded to keep wages down.

How exactly does a senior manager using his position to recruit his subordinates fight that? In fact, it seems like a great way to put employees in precisely that position.

> even California's Labor Code contains such a provision

Again "Any sense other than the outmoded legal sense." I hope you aren't arguing that something not being illegal in California is evidence that the thing is morally good?

> "Using his position to recruit his subordinates"

What's your implication? That somehow Anderson threatened their careers? Because I don't see anything suggesting that in the article. And frankly, it's disingenous to promote that kind of theory with no evidence and a clear knowledge that such a threat would never fly (I.E. any employee could go to HR and say "he's firing me because I won't join his company with that google guy" and they'd get rehired and potentially win a whistle-blower lawsuit).

If you're not implying that some threat was involved, then I have no pity on the people he so maliciously offered superior jobs to.

I was responding to the later sentence where you asserted that it wasn't illegal. No, I don't think everything in the California labor code (or any other for that matter) is in accordance with what is moral.

You can have an unhealthy power dynamic without ever directly threatening someone's career. Do you generally hold that when an employee is put in an uncomfortable position by a superior, they can't complain if they could've just gone to HR and hoped that they would be receptive?

Calling my speculation disingenuous when you tried to use the fact that managers have colluded to keep employee wages low without any evidence Tesla's in fact did that is pretty hypocritical.

>>> Do you generally hold that when an employee is put in an uncomfortable position by a superior, they can't complain if they could've just gone to HR and hoped that they would be receptive?

What I'm contending is that there is absolutely no evidence any employees were made uncomfortable by what happened. And moreover since I know I at least would much rather receive a poach offer than not from my manager, it's hard for you to make a blanket statement that these anti-poaching rules are somehow to protect employees.

I'm not suggesting that Tesla colluded to keep wages down. My point is that many C-level executives and investors see their dynamic with their employees as antagonistic (i.e. 0-sum-game). Without the opportunity to get bought by other companies the competitiveness of the market is undermined, and employees get paid below their value. Preventing poaching does exactly that.

Not sure why you think it matters what's "against the law" - Tesla is suing him.

He signed a contract. If Tesla's lawyers are worth beans, that contract has a number of clauses which such behavior flagrantly violates.

I think he was making the argument that even if the employee violated anti-poaching terms in the contract, that any such violation shouldn't be legally suable because anti-poaching rules should be legally invalid, since they violate a fundamental right.

At this point I'm starting to wonder what doesn't constitute a fundamental right these days.

It's not unreasonable for an employer to expect their employees not to spend their time at work working/advertising/recruiting for a separate business. Of course no such protection exists for conversations had down the pub after work.

We've no real idea what the case in question involves - it may be that tesla cannot make it stick. It's all about context

Eh, if your "fundamental right" isn't a primary right, I feel like you can definitely sign it away.

> some of the times managers have colluded to keep wages down

And they got sued for it and lost. Besides, a bad actor at company A is not an excuse for getting revenge on company B.

I'm not advocating "revenge," I'm challenging the attitude that employees have a moral calling to care about the overall welfare of a corporation that ultimately exists to make shareholders richer. Not to say it's an "invalid" goal, if you want to do that, but make no mistake that these corporations generally don't have a reciprocal moral concern for their employees (and often no moral concerns beyond "what is legal?").

One's honor is not dependent on those one interacts with.

For example, stealing from a thief may be considered karmic justice, but it still makes one a thief.