[JustExAWS]

Huge conflict of interest for who? It was a private company who only had a fiduciary responsibility to its investors and the employees themselves had no responsibilities to refuse a better offer from a competitor.

There was a whole stink in 2010 about all of the major tech companies agreeing to not poach other companies’ employees and suppressing wages.

[trhway]

>the employees themselves had no responsibilities to refuse a better offer from a competitor

actually they have such a responsibility - if the offer in any way connected (or may be perceived as such) with a deal in which the employee is representing its current employer. The same reason why the President can't take expensive gifts from foreign powers for example ...

>There was a whole stink in 2010 about all of the major tech companies agreeing to not poach other companies’ employees and suppressing wages.

that has no relation to the current discussion.

[JustExAWS]

I am well aware of anti poaching agreements between partners or consulting agencies and clients. I am currently working for a consulting company (full time) and in the past I was an employee at AWS ProServe.

The contract states you can’t solicit employees under that arrangement. But either side’s employees are free to proactively outreach.

I’m not referring to “consulting companies” that are basically doing staff augmentation.

Neither is the case here

[trhway]

It isn't about poaching. It is about how vigorously you'd be protecting the interests of your company A in a deal with company B when simultaneously negotiating your personal offer with the company B, especially if it is [even if just implicitly] packaged together i.e. "the offer happens only if the deal happens." You don't see a conflict of interests here?

[raw_anon_1111]

There is no evidence that any of these companies had contracts with the acquiring companies before reaching out to the employees.