Comment by gavinray
4 years ago
It's not ruthless -- it's business.
If the fault lies on anyone, it's the employees who accepted the offers. If they really thought it was "evil", they would have denied the offer on moral grounds or in loyalty to their employer.
Do you not frequently get offers for more money than you are currently making at your employer? I would be a massive asshole if I accepted and left a job every time I got one of those -- especially in this market!
Since they succeeded in hiring so much of their company away, it seems none of them felt particularly attached to Borland or their work there, compared to a salary.
The only "evil" in the situation is how easily some (most?) people will abandon you the moment they get a better opportunity.
I suppose Borland could have matched salaries or tried to keep their employees in whatever way (maybe they did, who knows?) but at the end of the day either they didn't, or it wasn't enough for those engineers.
>The only "evil" in the situation is how easily some (most?) people will abandon you the moment they get a better opportunity.
As if your company wouldn't fire you the moment it was more lucrative to do so.
> It's not ruthless -- it's business.
It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
It's a dick move, and I wouldn't do it, but I am also not beholden to a board of investors/shareholders that expect to see positive ROE at the end of the day.
This is part of Microsoft's core culture. Bill Gates championed the philosophy of doing anything it takes to get ahead, as long as there's some argument that it might be legal.
3 replies →
Wait till you hear how they compete for suppliers, customers, and regulatory changes. Business is about gaining an advantage over a rival. Scoping up rival employees is a 2x activity, you get talent and a competitor has less.
> It's not ruthless -- it's business.
Targeting all employees of a smaller company to destroy them is considered unfair business practice in some countries (legitimately IMHO). It's similar than selling at loss until your smaller competitor is out of business.
Why is this considered illegal or unethical? This seems like a fairly legitimate tactical move to me.
It's like a war of attrition -- you allow yourself to suffer losses for the sake of ultimately winning. At least in this scenario, the main player is also slightly fucking themselves over, instead of just you.
> Why is this considered illegal or unethical?
After competitors are knocked out of the market, the survivor can raise prices to above-market levels.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
1 reply →
You can take a job and leave if they pay you more. That is fine. Microsoft isn't really only trying to gain talent. They want to drain the life blood out of their competition so they can get ahead. That intention is evil
It's a tactic. A dark one for sure. But corporations aren't known for being philanthropist anyway even if they spend millions on PR to mask that image.
As long as there's no enforcement (and in a free capitalist economy it's hard to enforce this, and I personally think it shouldn't be enforced too) these will happen. The best thing that smaller companies can do is to adapt and play by the rules if they can't change them.
Not saying it's good or bad. It is just it is.
>"The only "evil" in the situation is how easily some (most?) people will abandon you the moment they get a better opportunity."
To keep feeding bosses while loosing potential raise? Thanks but no thanks