this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
55 points (87.7% liked)
Technology
74003 readers
3002 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hiring someone that OpenAI chose to fire is pretty clearly fair play, but how does this declaration not directly run afoul of anti-poaching laws?
(Disclaimer: not a lawyer)
Anti-poaching laws?
IIUC companies in the US can poach all they want. Non-poach agreements are not enforceable, I think.
It would be pretty anticompetitive to allow non-poach agreements, considering that the US uses at-will employment. If a competitor wants to make an offer to your employees, your employees should be free to accept that offer. At-will employment is a two-way street.
It’s the reverse. Companies get in trouble for agreeing to not poach employees from each other.
What anti-poaching laws? At most this would violate non-compete clauses that may exist, but those generally aren't enforceable anyways.
Most non-poaching clauses in non-competes specify that the person signing it can't recruit employees from their old work, usually for X number of years. Microsoft almost certainly didn't sign any non-competes and unless Sam Altman is the one making this offer there aren't any non-compete violations happening.
Non-competes and poaching clauses aren’t based on any laws, and it turns out they aren’t even legally binding in many cases.
I'm not arguing they are, but that they aren't relevant at all in this case. They aren't even designed to address this situation (binding or otherwise).
Seemed like you were answering their question, but I reread and get what you were trying to say now.
The only thing I'm familiar with that resembles anti poaching laws in America is tampering rules in sports leagues but they have all these exemptions and such. Anti poaching laws in tech industry would be pretty catastrophic.
You can't go to the business and recruit. Public statements, LinkedIn messages, etc are totally fine.