[sneak]

It's crazy to me as someone who believes in mutually consensual relationships in all things (including business and trade) that doing something last week is implicit requirement that one does the same thing next week, and that withdrawing consent to additional future trade is seen as a "severe action".

"A job" is really a fictional abstraction. Every day one works is additional services-for-money. Either party should rightfully be able to say "no thanks, that's enough, tomorrow is a new day" at any time.

[teawrecks]

This is a fine mentality when you're running a lemonade stand, but gets complicated when you're talking about a person's livelihood in a country where something like 60% of people are living paycheck to paycheck. If ONLY we lives in a society that valued itself over the profits of a few individuals.

[sneak]

It's nothing to do with livelihood and everything to do with the liquidity of the labor market.

If a person can get another job immediately, you aren't harming them by declining to continue to be a customer. In fact, you employing them is no power over them at all (unless you were overpaying them relative to their market value).

[octodog]

> If a person can get another job immediately

This does not happen in reality. There are transactional costs involved in job searching plus additional costs that come from onboarding.

[sneak]

It regularly happens in reality. I know people who have walked out of one job, crossed a street, and walked in to another less than a half hour later. With construction, bartenders, kitchen and waitstaff, bussers, and security it is ridiculously common.

It becomes more common the lower skill the job becomes, as the fungibility of the worker increases.