|
|
|
|
|
|
by edw519
6838 days ago
|
|
|
By the way, I haven't failed to notice that everyone except me is getting voted up in this "little debate". Kinda scary. I'm adamant on this issue, not because of emotion, but because I think it's that important. I really don't care what technology you use, but I do care how you treat other people. I've seen what happens too many times when people don't play "by the rules" (whatever that means to you). FWIW, I don't think either party in this "dispute" emerges smelling very good. We should all just get back to hacking. Get beat in the marketplace fair and square? Try something else. That's the beauty here. Everyone can win. |
|
|
I'm not among the ones voting you down. I prefer to respond.
> I've seen what happens too many times when people don't play "by the rules" (whatever that means to you).
Sure, and I agree...where we disagree is on what those rules are. My position is that offering someone a job is not a breach of ethics, unless there is a non-compete or non-association agreement in place. The folks in this story are unrelated parties. They have no contractual relationship, and seemingly no friendship to uphold. While it would be rude to "poach" (note that I don't care for this word in this context--it puts the person being offered a position in the role of animal with no ability to think for or look out for his/her own interests) someone from a friends company, it is not a breach of any reasonable code of business ethics.
Good old boys, in the bad old days, might have had gentleman's agreements in place to keep folks from moving between jobs for higher pay and better treatment. But those days and those boys are, for the most part, gone in the technology industry. Employment is at will, and the best talent goes to the highest bidder (by some definition of highest, where Google redefines it to not be raw salary). That is how it is, and how it should be. What you're suggesting is, I believe, the unethical position. When taken to its logical conclusion, you're suggesting that an engineer is the lifetime servant of the company he works for, and has no right to entertain other offers and no one has the right to make other offers.
In a previous thread, you've threatened murder in similar circumstances. I believe we're at odds on this position, as well. ;-)
> I don't think either party in this "dispute" emerges smelling very good.
Here, we agree.