A "right to employment" only exists when nobody with the means to employ someone has any right to their own property.

Sorry, discrimination is discrimination, and discriminating somebody just b/c they worked on a company x, in a very systematic way (and colluding with other companies on this), seems very anti-competitive. At the end, is the employees that suffer b/c there is less competition for their skills.

Oh wait, you don't like that? Yeah, it's called conspiracy.

You have the right to do whatever you want with your property, but you can not conspire with your friends against a helpless segment of society that's trying to make a living .. or any other segment for that matter.

:)

Oh wait, you don't like that? Yeah, it's called conspiracy.

Well, "conspiracy" often implies secretiveness, so I'm not sure you qualify. Don't worry, though, since unlike if our positions were reversed, apparently, I don't want you thrown in jail for advocating mass downmodding.

Discrimination is the ability to tell things apart. If Google has a rule against poaching from their friends and partners, that's fine with me; if they're underpaying all of their employees, what you're really saying is that someone who doesn't participate in the cartel gets their choice of the top technical talent in the valley. If you seriously believed this, you'd be raising money for a startup to exploit it, rather than complaining about it on news.yc.

If it is just a "we won't actively recruit", then it doesn't make sense to me. This seems a valid thing to do. Actively recruiting vs. denying hiring are two radically different things, and the Feds getting involved in the decision of where to recruit from seems silly.