Let’s look at the following –cut and pasted — Colorado’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) provides employers with a statutory method to combat solicitation of customers and employees. CUTSA prohibits the misappropriation (the acquisition or use of a trade secret by someone who knows or has reason to know it was acquired through improper means) or threatened misappropriation of an employer’s trade secrets. The Act also specifically allows for a court to issue an injunction to prevent misappropriation or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret. Thus, employers often argue that a former employee soliciting customers is relying on trade secret information in doing so. In particular, if an employer can establish that the customer list is a trade secret under CUTSA, a former employee’s use of the list is a wrongful misappropriation.” — this was Cut and pasted from CoBar

Though we may not believe employees to be “property” the concerns also come about with contracts of non disclosure as well. As Charles krugel even mentions, when a company creates these contracts, and maintains continuous effort to keep those employees lists / names as a secret

using Colarado again – As used in this article (Statute Definitions), unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means.
(2) “Misappropriation” means:
(a) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
(b) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who:
(I) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
(II) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that such person’s knowledge of the trade secret was:
(A) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
(B) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(C) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(III) Before a material change of such person’s position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

Rotheberger has a great article on this act http://www.rothgerber.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=656 How Can an Employer Protect Confidential Information?

California Penal Code Section 530 specifically says “receives any money or property”. The information – the fact of a person working for a company – is nether money nor property, and as such doesn’t apply.

California Penal Code Section 538.5 appears to be specific to public utilities. Even so, the language states, “confidential, privileged, or proprietary information, trade secrets,trade lists, customer records, billing records, customer credit data,or accounting data”. None of applies here.