Usually I actually share your opinion. But last year I was in a situation where I spent a lot of my work time, spare time, and private ressources (e.g. invites to lunch or cinema, even letting a new coworker use my apartment for free while looking for an apartment of his own).

My goal was to build a real team out of the random bunch of coworks and actually succeeded. In the end we were a competitive, cooperating, efficient machine putting out about 10 mandays of customer value in 2-3 real time days if necessary.

In that example I really felt compelled to leave WITH the coworkers. True they were hired by my employee, but the team was built by my coworkers and me.

PS: So, considering examples like that, maybe next time you could try to formulate yours a little more open for alternatives. E.g. "Interesting point of view. Let me add another one: [...]" What do you think?

I'm missing something in your anecdote - at what point did you and your current coworkers leave? Who was the employee that hired them?

If you built a team for the benefit of your company on company time, and that team decides to leave as a whole, that's one thing. If you spend company time on recruiting people to another company, that's very different!

You are assuming there are no malicious employees who are economically inclined to steal from your company. If this is allowed as the norm, your wonderful "friends" from work who stay at your place would smile the entire time they are making millions selling you out.

> You are assuming there are no malicious employees who are economically inclined to steal from your company.

Why do you think that? I don't. And I don't want to allow anything as the norm. So, not sure where you are coming from. Did you respond to the wrong comment?

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.

> 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.

There are blurry lines though, which is what the court case will determine.

If you have your laptop at home and are technically on call ( for example, in Spain, if you are paid above average for a position it can be claimed in court that you were technically on call. Happened to a friend of mine )

Also director that have the "unlimited holidays" could be considered on company time whenever they didn't book holiday in the system.

Companies put abusive clause in contract, saying that everything you develop, anytime, anywhere, automatically belongs to the company.

Director time is a funny thing too. A lot of those director level that work 100+ hours per week include lunch with people, going to a party, playing football with peers, ... and in any case, company encourage bonding outside working hours. Technical people, developer are expected to have their work as a hobby and train outside business hours.

The room for liberal interpretation is vast and Tesla is a thin skinned company. But well, court will tell.

What is not company time nowadays? For a salaried tech employee it's a pure tossup.

Just because you were physically at your workplace doesn't in my mind make it "company time", and the concept for a place like Tesla where people keep track if you do too little but certainly not the opposite seems completely inane.