undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbananaface5y ago0 comments

Oh come on. It's just succinct and communicates what's happening effectively. There's no grand conspiracy to create some underhanded psychological shift in the workforce at large... God, it's so ridiculous. Business slang like this comes from managers bored out of their minds trying to be concise and make corporate interaction marginally interesting.

What other word would you recommend? Lured? Hired? They're not as precise.

0 comments

liability5y ago

The only sense in which 'hired' is less precise is that it doesn't communicate that the former employer is bitter about the situation.

Otherwise "they hired people who worked for me" and "they poached my employees" describe the same thing. If the bitter attitude is important to express, then it could be phrased as: "They hired people who worked for me and I have a stick up my ass about it."

bananafaceOP5y ago

"Hired" does not communicate that the other employer was the instigator.

"Did the employee reach out, or was he poached?"

I just do not think it's worth getting anal about the terminology. Who gives a shit if your old employer says "poached" when you just got a $50k pay rise?

ZeroGravitas5y ago

They should call it something neutral like "BigCorp unilaterally downsized my team for me".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse