Item — HN Reader

> 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.

1 comments

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.