upvote
Gutted. Poached is a bad word for it which already describes a different thing that is a component of this thing. If you can combine "poach" and acquire in a witty way, go for it.

"Hi-quired," although not sonorous, is at least a new word for a specific thing, instead of a word for a closely related thing that would just confuse anyone who heard it. I might've just gone for "Hire-quired" because it's obvious what it means and it seems a little bit easier to say.

reply
Poaching is when one illegally hunts wildlife. People are not animals, and hiring them is not harming them. It is a terrible term to apply to human beings.
reply
Most people know what poaching means without making that association. It’s a perfectly legitimate term across all forms of employment, in both negative and positive contexts.

Do we also need to retire ‘head hunting’, because it brings to mind cartoonishly outdated notions of savagery?

reply
Within the employment context, is it ever a negative? Only from the perspective of the competitor? But to society as a whole, "poaching" (hiring) employees is clearly a massive win.
reply
The recruiter person should sometimes dramatically proclaim "Off with your head!" to signify a head hunting success (to the poachee).

Reject modernity, embrace tradition.

reply
Actually, it's a technique used to make eggs, and I understand that the eggs are perfectly fine with this usage of the term.
reply
Do we know for a fact that Google isn't cooking these employees in simmering liquid?
reply
But is silence really consent?
reply
Might be too late to start gatekeeping this term

---

poach (verb) poached; poaching; poaches

Intransitive verb

1. To encroach upon, especially for the purpose of taking something.

2. To trespass for the purpose of stealing game; also, to take game or fish illegally.

Transitive verb

1. To trespass on.

2. a. To take (game or fish) by illegal methods.

  b. To appropriate (something) as one's own.  
   
  c. To attract (someone, such as an employee or customer) away from a competitor.
reply
There are many thousands of words that mean more than one thing. If you go out of your way to deliberately misapply one meaning to another, in a way that's offensive, that's on you. Nobody's asking or forcing you to do that.

Do you object if someone says, "I adopted a new strategy"? After all, children are adopted, and one could say that using this phrase trivializes a deeply important human relationship.

Do you object if someone says, "She's a fan of my work"? After all, a fan is a machine that blows air. It could be said that referring to a person as a fan reduces them to an appliance whose purpose is to serve someone else.

Do you object if someone says, "I have a date tonight"? After all, a date is a fruit. Someone could say that calling a romantic partner a "date" is to objectify them and reduce them to something consumed for pleasure.

reply
To clarify, what I am objecting to is taking a term for something with a massive negative societal impact, and trying to apply it to something that has a massive societal positive impact, in order to make the positive thing sound like a negative thing. I am all for the evolution of language, especially when it serves society.
reply
Words can have more than one meaning.
reply
People are, in fact, animals.
reply
Indeed, they are. I should have said they aren't wild game.
reply