151–160 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When most people make investments they take steps to protect those investments, if they don't want to lose the investment they should match the salary of the competitor.
Matching the salary of the competitor is pretty easy when the competitor has an agreement with you not to offer a higher salary for your employees.
I am surprised that people are surprised by this. Who do VCs spend their skiing trips with: ramen-fed, sleep-deprived startup founders, or other VCs? Of course, they hang out with each other. Same with executives at large companies. They might be nominally "competitors", but they've already learned that they have more in common with one another than with employees in the companies they run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
hmmm... Well, this isn't an attack against you personally, or a tit-for-tat sort of comment, but... > We have to work among the group of people for which this behavior is standard procedure. You ARE saying that this is acceptable, since "we have to" work among them, and I just don't agree :)
Well, the alternative is homelessness and early death.
somewhat related. Last week a friend of mine that is growing his recruiting business tried to put me in contact with someone at this firm in NYC, for a position that sounds ideal for me and my background. Once he got to the HR department, and as soon as they saw where i currently work, they told him that they have some agreement about not hiring people from my current company and that was it. They didn't even seem to…
It is not legal. That is precisely why Apple, Google, etc. are being sued.
also, could there be a situation where there is some conflict of interest based on nature of business of both firms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but that also means I am free to try and re-re-define words back to their origin as well :)
Indeed, you are free to. On occasion I've tried to do the same thing. But in practice, I don't think it usually helps. It muddies up the waters of conversation, which depend on everyone having roughly the same definitions of words. At least, you have to be careful, and know that most people won't (immediately) change, and that you're making things more complicated.
The same thing is true in programming languages - eg people who go back to basics and throw out the cached thoughts that make up a web of assumptions that everyone clings to, and in the process create something weird yet powerful (like Haskell or whatever).
somewhat related. Last week a friend of mine that is growing his recruiting business tried to put me in contact with someone at this firm in NYC, for a position that sounds ideal for me and my background. Once he got to the HR department, and as soon as they saw where i currently work, they told him that they have some agreement about not hiring people from my current company and that was it. They didn't even seem to…
It is not legal. That is precisely why Apple, Google, etc. are being sued.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are surprised by the blatant disregard for employee rights and that they would do something so illegal.
I guess I'm cynical, but I'm not surprised. I wouldn't have expected some specific individuals (I thought more of Eric Schmidt; I always liked him) to be involved but the behavior is not shocking. Yes, it's shitty and illegal. No, it's not at all surprising. Let's say that you're talking to an investor and you tell him that you're being courted by another VC and that he needs to act fast. What's the first thing he'll…
I think most people here would rather hang out with another techie from a rival company than they would with the head of marketing from their own company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, you are free to. On occasion I've tried to do the same thing. But in practice, I don't think it usually helps. It muddies up the waters of conversation, which depend on everyone having roughly the same definitions of words. At least, you have to be careful, and know that most people won't (immediately) change, and that you're making things more complicated.
It's important to have clear and powerful linguistics. Sticky linguistics make sticky minds. Compare inuits, with their multitude of words for snow - they probably have richer and clearer discussions on snow. The same thing is true in programming languages - eg people who go back to basics and throw out the cached thoughts that make up a web of assumptions that everyone clings to, and in the process create something…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, you are free to. On occasion I've tried to do the same thing. But in practice, I don't think it usually helps. It muddies up the waters of conversation, which depend on everyone having roughly the same definitions of words. At least, you have to be careful, and know that most people won't (immediately) change, and that you're making things more complicated.
It's important to have clear and powerful linguistics. Sticky linguistics make sticky minds. Compare inuits, with their multitude of words for snow - they probably have richer and clearer discussions on snow. The same thing is true in programming languages - eg people who go back to basics and throw out the cached thoughts that make up a web of assumptions that everyone clings to, and in the process create something…