In a [post] on his blog Horowitz describes a scenario in which a person currently employed at a company that is "important" to you comes in for an interview. The recommended course of action is to 1: block the hire, 2: inform said company about it. There are two things i just can't agree with at all:
* The part about informing the current employer: about 50% of the time it will end with ruining the next few weeks or months of his/her life. I.e. getting them fired, with ruined prospects of getting the job they took the risk for. Note that at e.g. apple the standard procedure when they find out that an employee is looking for a job is to escort them out of the building right then and there.
* Note it's not about "poaching", he explains thoroughly that it applies to people who ask for an interview on their own accord too.
If you don't want to read the whole thing, at least read this gem:
It is important to note that just about all of these kinds of policies violate the Right to Work laws in California. Specifically, if you block a hire based on this kind of policy and the employee loses their job and cannot find work, your company is liable for his wages. As a result, the business relationship with the other company must be extremely important for you to employ any kind of “hands off” policy.
said blog [post]: http://www.bhorowitz.com/is_it_ok_to_hire_people_from_your_f...
Do you have a source on this? I couldn't find anything with a quick Google search.
Note that logic: the problem is not with the company ben is advising. The issue is at the third part company. If that company decides to "go nuclear" and sever all ties because you poached/goaded or otherwise got involved in their "interal politics" (note: this is not a per-se issue of math/economics/money), bad things might happen to your firm.
CEOs of startups have a fiduciary duty to avoid "bad things", and even that choice is a catch-22 (ie, two bad things...) you pick the worst-bad one. And that is what he is saying.
In other words, he's talking about something that is a real-world problem. If you want to vent out about the issue, it really sits with the third part company. They are typically the one with all the power in the situation.
Example:
Startup A had 80% of its business tied to a single company, BigCo B. Like it or not, the CEO of startup A needs to avoid a situation where the CEO of BigCo B comes to the conclusion that he won't do business with A becaus of Politics (note: not economics).
Whether or not poaching is politically sensitive (or offensive) and/or warrants this type of "nuclear" response, is a function of many thing. But none of that is BH's responsibility in the larger world.
This dynamics is something that has played out for millenia from kings and queens and royal courts to how the predisent and Y combinator select their staff and senior leadership.
At a certain level of the game, its all about trust. And polticial power is essentially a combination of trust and goodwill. And its easy to disolve and can reak havok on any company of any size when systemically undermined. So you need to pay attention to it.
In other words, this is a much bigger issue. The tack of trying to shoot or lynch the messenger is sort of misplaced. Because the startup is the employer and may have a power asymmetry with a potential hire; but that startup is in itself subject to potential power assymetries at much higher levels.
(This goes for pissing off BOD members, VCs, and Key clients alike...maybe it suck/isn't fair...etc... but the reality is you need to pick your battes as a small company. And picking fights with the consituents you need to help you build your biz is ~dysfunctional and needs to be understood as such.)
Note that he has not described it as a morally ambiguous but sometimes unavoidable choice (like you did) but as the most righteous and noble option. That he's openly admitting he knows that it's illegal. Pay attention the sugar-sweet language of his parable and how its tone gets more colorful whenever the story takes a darker turn (from pov of the employee).
I mean, this entire thing is something out of a dilbert strip. I'm serious. This is something you'd expect Dilbert's CEO to write. The self deceit, the contrast between the language of "hurt feelings" vs the unstated reality of a person getting fired as a consequence and the stupidity of it all are mocked in hundred different Dilbert strips. Remember when this wage fixing story surfaced and the surprised comments that they were stupid enough to put it in email? If Mr Horowitz ever gets in similar trouble the paragraph i quoted above will make these troubles a lot worse.
But the situation of apple and google colluding (ie, this linked article) IMHO is a ~different situation here than the subject of the BH piece.
1> Google and AAPL as of the time of the lawsuit were not small players (fighting for their lives). They were 'fat cats' essentially at the top of the food chain.
2> Their motivations seem inherently economic/greedy, and fundamentally anti-competitive. They were not even vaguely 'customer centric' or otherwise constructive (except at the most tenditious levels).
3> The defendents were self aware their actions were unethica/illegal, and in the context of (1) and (2), were actively taking steps to hide/bury/conspire/collude regarding the illegal activity.
So this type of context is not the same. Calling out the BH essay seems to add a layer of useful sophistication to the discussion here. Half the utility, tho, is understanding the difference.
Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them. In this regard the tech industry is no more progressive than any other, and that's incredibly disappointing. We're supposed to be such an intelligent bunch.
I believe you misunderstood my point based on the following comment:
> Workers should be free to seek to improve their lives without old white men making back-room deals against them
I support the "Do Not Poach" rule. "Do Not Poach" does not prevent workers from seeking employment. It means, me as an employer, will not actively solicit employees of other companies if we have shared investors (given the size and complexity of the investments).
"Do Not Hire" on the otherhand, seems to be what you are taking umbrage with, and I concur. Employees should (generally speaking) be allowed to seek employment opportunities without back-room deals preventing that.
a) If you get sent a resume in response to an open req and you reject them based solely on the current employer of the applicant being a "friendly company" ("do not hire" list), that is illegal and wrong.
b) If you realize the applicant is from a "friendly company" and so you make a subtle threat along the lines of: "We are going to call your current employer to get a reference check before we decide to extend any offer, are you sure that's ok with you?" (also recommended in Horowitz's book), it's also wrong and unfair. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if that is overtly illegal however.
It is possibly even lawful to do that with the intent of avoiding poaching and ill will.
What's definitely not lawful is to conspire with the companies on that list to determine its makeup.
Do not hire is different than do not poach.
The wisdom I subscribe to is, if you have common investors, it's bad form to actively poach from portfolio companies.
For companies that are later stage, it's bad form to poach key employee's from portfolio companies.
Do Not Hire agreements between companies, however, seem unreasonable, except when there is clear cause for conflict of interest.