What is wrong with Right to Work???

[crashhelmet]

That's how it works in practice. In theory, not so much. In practice, "at-will" and "right to work" are almost indistinguishable. The only difference is whether you can be blocked from a job by a Union.

I think that's more due to ignorance of the law. Either from a lack of knowledge or misinformation, like employers lieing to hide behind it.

Nevada is a RTW State and I know a few people that were fired for BS reasons and their employers cited RTW laws. Its confusion is something I never understood. It's called Right to Work for a reason. It's not Right to Employ.

While it's true that the employee can quit without notice or explanation in RTW states, the flip side of that is that any future prospective employer who bothers to call them will most likely hear about it, and will probably cost you jobs that you otherwise "deserve." And, as EricKei points out, UI benefits are only eligible for people who are fired without cause - if you quit, you're 99% likely to be uneligible, even if you have cause.

Actually, they can't. Or at least, they're not supposed to.

When verifying past employment, a previous employer is only allowed to say when you started and when you stopped. They are not allowed to answer any questions about why your employment was terminated, how you performed, or if you're re-hirable. They are also not allowed to volunteer any information regarding those topics and prospective employers are not allowed to ask. This is to prevent railroading by former employers for employees that leave to go elsewhere or get tired of poor treatment.

[Andara Bledin]

From what I understand, former employers are allowed to say anything they want.

However, if what they say can be shown to be a reason a future employer chose not to hire someone, that can open them up to liability. Which is why most employers stick with hire date, fire date, and whether they are eligible for re-hire, as those are basic facts that are almost never in dispute. Less concrete information can result in the employee bringing charges of slander or libel against the company.

That said, there may be state laws that govern what a current or former employer may or may not legally disclose to prospective employers. If someone is unsure, it's best that they either contact their state labor board or look up the information themselves.

^-.-^

[Tanasi]

From what I understand, former employers are allowed to say anything they want.

However, if what they say can be shown to be a reason a future employer chose not to hire someone, that can open them up to liability. Which is why most employers stick with hire date, fire date, and whether they are eligible for re-hire, as those are basic facts that are almost never in dispute. Less concrete information can result in the employee bringing charges of slander or libel against the company.

That said, there may be state laws that govern what a current or former employer may or may not legally disclose to prospective employers. If someone is unsure, it's best that they either contact their state labor board or look up the information themselves.

^-.-^

I concur, when I'm contacted I only give the bare minimum of dates of employment and rehire eligibility. A friend of mine was setup by a former employee, the former employee recorded the conversation and then in effect blackmailed him to keep her from filing a lawsuit. That lasted for a year after that when she tried to collect more money he was ready for her and turned the tables on her.