If Arthur Andersen thinking is defined as "don't take petty crap like this personally, and focus your brain cycles on MSPW", then I have to side with Arthur Andersen. But I suspect that this is a matter on which Paul Graham and David Duncan would be in agreement.
"It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."
And it certainly isn't petty. I don't care how much technical talent you have, if you're not prepared to compete in business, whatever the threat, you're toast. Poaching my people is crossing the line.
And I don't care what Paul Graham, David Duncan, or anyone else thinks. On this issue, you shouldn't either. Ethics is non-negotiable.
This isn't a question of ethics. This is a question of whether you and the company you're building is worth the talent you have put together to build it. If, particularly at this early stage (the article says the silly words "this late in the game", as though applying to YC is the finish line) your partner were to come to the conclusion that another company were a better opportunity, then your problem is with your business or with your partner. It has nothing to do with other possible businesses that might want your partners talents on their side.
If you're not prepared to deal with the problem of getting and keeping good developers in a highly competitive market, then you're not equipped to deal with running a business in the tech industry. You will be astounded by how hard it is to recruit the very best talent. Middle tier and lesser developers are abundant...it's the cream of the crop, the people who deliver solid, reliable, working code day in and day out, that are difficult to find and to keep.
Welcome to the real world of business, where you have to worry about things like that.
Why is it, whenever there's an ethical issue on this forum, inevitably, someone steps up and says, "This isn't a question of ethics."
Maybe I'm the one in the wrong place. I certainly hope not. I like it here.
(FWIW: I've been in the "real world of business" since 1979, starting and selling 2 successful start-ups, working on #3. In all that time, nothing has concerned me more than ethical issues. I'd like to think I've been burnt every way possible, but thanks to some of the responses in this forum, now I wonder.)
> Why is it, whenever there's an ethical issue on this forum, inevitably, someone steps up and says, "This isn't a question of ethics."
Because, in this case, it isn't. The article is about a human being, one with free will or some impressive approximation thereof, who received a business proposition.
Another human being is pissed off at the person making the proposition...but the proposition is not his problem. The business he is building and his relationship with his teammate is his problem. The person receiving the proposition may have had some ethics questions to address, like, "What is my responsibility to my teammate and the business we are building?"
The person making the offer was perhaps a bit rude (though his description of the proposition makes it entirely within the bounds of good taste), but not particularly unethical. Nearly every hire you make in the real world is hiring someone away from an existing job. Is it unethical to give someone a better offer? Is it unethical to give someone (who you know to be an employee at IBM or Google or whatever) your business card when you meet them at events and say, "let's have lunch sometime"? Of course not.
Anyway, it's all like a damned soap opera, and the OP made a mistake to post it at all. This isn't college, and nobody cheated on a test.
> Maybe I'm the one in the wrong place. I certainly hope not. I like it here.
A not so subtle way of suggesting that perhaps I'm poisoning the waters with my unethical advice? You'll be fine, as I can't reach through the wires and choke you or anything sinister like that. Unless perhaps you've got a weak heart and respond reflexively to nasty comments like mine, in which case, perhaps a nice hot bath would be more your speed.
By the way, I haven't failed to notice that everyone except me is getting voted up in this "little debate". Kinda scary. I'm adamant on this issue, not because of emotion, but because I think it's that important. I really don't care what technology you use, but I do care how you treat other people. I've seen what happens too many times when people don't play "by the rules" (whatever that means to you).
FWIW, I don't think either party in this "dispute" emerges smelling very good. We should all just get back to hacking. Get beat in the marketplace fair and square? Try something else. That's the beauty here. Everyone can win.
> By the way, I haven't failed to notice that everyone except me is getting voted up in this "little debate".
I'm not among the ones voting you down. I prefer to respond.
> I've seen what happens too many times when people don't play "by the rules" (whatever that means to you).
Sure, and I agree...where we disagree is on what those rules are. My position is that offering someone a job is not a breach of ethics, unless there is a non-compete or non-association agreement in place. The folks in this story are unrelated parties. They have no contractual relationship, and seemingly no friendship to uphold. While it would be rude to "poach" (note that I don't care for this word in this context--it puts the person being offered a position in the role of animal with no ability to think for or look out for his/her own interests) someone from a friends company, it is not a breach of any reasonable code of business ethics.
Good old boys, in the bad old days, might have had gentleman's agreements in place to keep folks from moving between jobs for higher pay and better treatment. But those days and those boys are, for the most part, gone in the technology industry. Employment is at will, and the best talent goes to the highest bidder (by some definition of highest, where Google redefines it to not be raw salary). That is how it is, and how it should be. What you're suggesting is, I believe, the unethical position. When taken to its logical conclusion, you're suggesting that an engineer is the lifetime servant of the company he works for, and has no right to entertain other offers and no one has the right to make other offers.
In a previous thread, you've threatened murder in similar circumstances. I believe we're at odds on this position, as well. ;-)
> I don't think either party in this "dispute" emerges smelling very good.
"One of us isn't leaving the room alive," is a figure of speech, one of many, I learned from my mentor. Helped me learn there's a whole lot more to business than being good at the technical aspects. Turned me from a wimp coder into a competitive business person.
Of course we're not indentured servants and have free will. It's just that this episode smelled real fishy to me. Still does.
Enjoyed the repartee today. Looking forward to the next time. Now, for my bath...
I don't think your comments were nasty and don't accuse anyone of poisoning anything. And I don't feel like I'm responding emotionally on this issue (although it may appear that way.) I just wonder sometimes why 2 intelligent people will look at the same data and have responses 180 degrees apart.
As a born nerd, I spent the first half of my life in a world I didn't belong in, being dumped on every step of the way. The world has finally changed for people like me (and you, I presume). Now I LOVE the thrill of competing! When it's fair and right, by offering better value. So when pussies who can't compete fairly resort to underhanded tactics, I take exception and fire right back. Between the eyes.
That's how I interpreted this incident. Can't code? Get a coder. Steal mine right out from under me (if you can), and deal with me. Period. I understand that you don't see it that way, but don't understand why. I'll just leave it at that.
And yes, I think I will have that nice hot bath tonight. Thank you.
"If you're not prepared to compete in business, whatever the threat, you're toast."
"Poaching my people is crossing the line."
Those two statements look juxtaposed to me. It sounds to me like you're the one who isn't prepared to compete if you aren't willing to pose such a threat to your competitors, or to contend with it when you're on the receiving end.
I'm prepared to compete and have to scars to show for it. I compete by doing the right thing and offering better value to my customers, not by a slime-ball back-door gimmicks, like commandeering others' IP, slamming my competitors, and yes, poaching co-founders in a bar.
