Whenever, I see it, I think of the two companies plying Y with enticements, with Y manipulating them until (s)he finally gets rich rewards with the new company.
Yes. If that wasn't what someone was trying to convey, why did they pick the word "poach" in the first place? The whole point of using that word is to evoke a metaphor where the hired employee is mere game animal ensnared by the company.
> I think of the two companies plying Y with enticements, with Y manipulating them until (s)he finally gets rich rewards with the new company.
"Hire" is a good verb for that.
It's always worth thinking about the language we use to describe things, because that language does have an effect on our modes of thought.
I believe it's a mistake to treat words as though they were nothing more than abstract parse tokens, devoid of any cultural, historical or etymological baggage and conveying only the precise meaning that we intend to convey. Language is more complex than that, and the baggage that comes along with words does sometimes imply things that may be entirely unintended by the speaker, and often slip easily below the level of conscious awareness. Entire fields of propaganda (and advertising!) are based on this.
I am unsure why even the idea of thinking about the words we use is apparently so controversial - is critical self-examination really so scary?
this comparison really seems to miss the mark.
