Comment by ryandrake | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryandrake | Hacker News Reader

I really think writers need to stop misusing the word "Poach" for these articles. The title's phrasing heavily implies a number of untrue things:

1. Uber owns their engineers

2. Snapchat is trespassing on some kind of "territory" and attempting to "steal" Uber's property

3. The engineers involved are like fish or game, simply being taken away by someone else

If someone chooses to go to work for another company, they aren't being "poached". They're informed participants in a business transaction, not to mention a major life event. They are voluntarily severing one business arrangement and entering into another one. This whole idea that when you go to work for a company, you turn in to some pheasant owned by the property's lord should be revolting to anyone who's worked hard on their career and their professional development.

Just stick with the word "recruit." Leave out "poach" and its negative and demeaning connotations.

EDIT: Typo

Oxford English dictionary lists the following definition of "poach": "take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way". seems reasonable to me, the connotations are your own.

Company A takes or acquires Company B's talent. it's not about Company B owning the person, it's about Company B possessing an employee, the abstract.

Both 'take' and 'acquire' imply possession.

RyanDrake is making the point that companies do not possess or own their employees. To use language implying they do is insulting and demeaning.

sorry, i already edited my response to address just this (so to readers your response might not seem as relevant as it was).

the technicalities of your argument imply that it is false for any company to say "we have X employees" and it is offensive for them to say "we have the best talent in the valley". the only truth would be "our company has no employees".

if you feel that way, at least you're logically consistent. it just feels disingenuous to me.

You've read out the "unfair or clandestine way" part in your last sentence.

unfair or clandestine is in the eyes of the beholder

From the sources I'm seeing, poaching is generally defined as "illegal hunting". One of the major points of the top level comment is that using the word poaching carries the connotation of illegality. I agree, and I think it primes the reader for what to expect from the article before they've read it (or in the cases where someone only sees the headline, sets their expectations unless corrected).

You know? You're absolutely right. And words are important.

Poaching is a commonly used term to describe this. It's been used for a long time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com