[sneak]

We accept it because philosophically and logically it makes perfect sense that either party to a transaction should be able to revoke consent at any time for any (or no) reason, absent an explicit contract to the contrary.

Showing up for work on Monday is no guarantee you will show up on Tuesday. Correspondingly employing you on Monday is no guarantee you will be employed on Tuesday.

I think it's a bit silly to expect any other state of affairs.

[matsemann]

Why is it silly? To me it sounds silly never really knowing if you have a job the next day, if you can pay your bills, your mortgage, buy food.

That amount of insecurity is to me just insane. I can't fathom living like that.

[sneak]

The scenario you describe is only possible if there is only one employer.

The moment you have multiple employers to choose from (ie an actual market for labor) then the insecurity is removed. Indeed, for the most part, if you can deliver value, you can find someone to pay you for it and your bills will get paid.

[matsemann]

Can you find a new job the very next day? Can everyone? Why not at least have a few weeks, what's the harm in that?

[sneak]

"the very next day" is arbitrary - you were talking about bills, those are usually due monthly.

It's not your employer's job to mitigate the risks an employee took on by not saving money. Everyone should have 90 days of expenses saved up.

[matsemann]

So all those living paycheck to paycheck should just be screwed?

I think your views come from a point of privilege.

[sneak]

It's not a matter of my view. The people you describe are only screwed if:

- they have no savings or access to credit

AND

- they get fired on short notice

AND

- they can't get another job

I'm not sure that making the employer fire them with a longer notice period, given that they can't get another job, means they won't be screwed. Therefore, I don't think there is any utility in so restricting the employer.

Not having savings is bad and dangerous. That's not caused by labor law.