News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Facebook Refused No-Poaching Agreement With Google. Parent comment

Re:Facebook Refused No-Poaching Agreement With Google by humanrebar on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @09:56AM (#7465832)
I think you mean "at-will employment"[1]. "right to work"[2] states limit the ability of union shops to exclude non-union workers. There really needs to be better terminology because people constantly confuse the two.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook Refused No-Poaching Agreement With Google by pessimizer on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @01:02PM (#7467081)
They're both propaganda labels anyway. If the words had more of a direct relationship to what they were describing, they could never be passed.

People do want the right to work, and also want to have employment at will. They are generally patriots, wish communication was more decent, and would love to be allowed to trade freely.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook Refused No-Poaching Agreement With Google by humanrebar on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:04PM (#7469945)
I don't know. I think popular opinion is against having closed shops, though perhaps not uniformly.

And at first blush, people might react negatively to at-will employment states, but the devil is in the details on proposals to replace at-will employment.

[ Parent | on HN ]