[JediWing]

No, it doesn't seem fair at all.

The employer should provide severance. Their act of removing a person's livelihood can have devastating consequences for the individual.

The employee shouldn't have to give notice, and forcing someone to PAY a fee to NOT work is forcing them to choose between wage theft and indentured servitude.

By and large, losing one employee won't make or break a company (and if it does, it should have given them more equity and/or autonomy to have a stake and sense of power to change some of the reasons they're leaving).

[jonp888]

Losing an employee from one day to the next without any possibility to do knowledge transfer or implement a transition plan is far more disruptive than having then continue to work for a minimum period.

The idea that if you just pay people enough money they will work a single job their entire career and never quit is absurd.

[aardvarkr]

The article specifically talks about doctors and nurses. There is no knowledge transfer going on. Even if I were to be generous to your argument, if the company trained a person to do that special job then they can train someone else.

Giving two weeks is a courtesy, nothing more. Forcing someone to work against their will ant great financial penalty is indentured servitude and the article cites court cases that are proceeding under human trafficking claims.

[choeger]

> Giving two weeks is a courtesy, nothing more. Forcing someone to work against their will ant great financial penalty is indentured servitude

What do you mean "against their will"? They have voluntarily signed a contract. I hope that contract is fair (notice goes both ways), but it's definitely transparent from the beginning. If you don't want that, don't sign such a contract.

[aardvarkr]

Read the article. Imagine you were a foreign immigrant brought in to work as a nurse. Turns out you were sold a bait and switch, and the work conditions are straight from hell. However, the contract you signed said you’d owe them a $20,000 termination fee when you wanted to quit. But you don’t have $20k in the bank and where you’re from the monthly wage is equivalent to $100 USD so no one you know has that money either. They threaten to bury you with legal bills to defend yourself unless you pay to break the contract. So instead of quitting you suffer and try to save up $20k, but you’re barely making ends meet as it is, so maybe you’ll be able to buy your freedom after you’ve served out the contract.

I’m pretty certain you’d call that a modern form of indentured servitude. They got a judge to agree with that and currently have a case against the company for human trafficking.

[diordiderot]

In the UK the mutual notice doesn't start immediately. You could make a clean break even a few months in. Ofc they could fire you as well