Yes, given that my employer can decide to dismiss me with zero warning, I don't really feel a blanket obligation to give them any more warning than I'd expect them to give me (i.e. zero).

I would give warning to my current employer, because I've been here for a long time, they've treated me alright, and I have a lot of knowledge that's important to the business. But I'd see it as a courtesy, not an obligation.

I do think that it matters how someone is fired on the spot though. I'd say firing someone on the spot is about the same as giving them a few weeks notice if you also give them full pay for those weeks and also officially end the employment after that period. I'd rather take a few days off and get extra time to look for a new job instead of coming into work at a company who is letting me go in a few weeks.

It's also usually in the company's best interest to not have you continue coming in for two weeks. Too much risk of sabotage.

To me, a 2-weeks notice is a courtesy to fellow coworkers, not the employer. 2 weeks is just about enough time to wrap up projects and transition the ownership of systems and remaining work to coworkers. I have been on the receiving end of a coworker quitting without warning, and it was incredibly annoying to try to figure out the details of what they were working on to make sure nothing fell through the cracks.

The professional relationships you establish today can be very important in the future. Your coworkers can give you references, help you get hired, or even do the hiring themselves one day. Therefore, it is in your best interest to not be an asshole and leave them hanging by quitting without warning.

Actually if you have a good relationship with your coworker and are struggling to go though his things you could just call him up after work or even during work to help you out ?

There is always ways to make things work when relationships are good.

Most people have little reasons to switch jobs if they are happy.

I've actually done this and my former co-worker wrote back and helped me out. So...

Lately, I've trended towards not trying to work with people at future jobs I've already worked with as I don't like the pressure of having to live up to whatever expectations they or others have. I'd rather someone have reasonable expectations that I can actually beat and vice versa.

> If you flipped this and asked all these people arguing that it's never ok to quit on the spot if it's fine to fire someone on the spot, do you think a single one would say no?

With or without two weeks of pay? I don't think I'd fire someone without two weeks of pay in lieu of notice, although I suppose if the behaviour were terrible enough it's possible.

Pay isn't everything though. Consider the case of immigrants who may need to be continuously employed to remain in the united states, or the more common case of people who depend on their employer for health insurance coverage.

Another interesting twist looking at this from Norway. Here 3 months notice (goes both ways) is the norm, 1 month the minimum. I'm honestly not sure how 2 weeks notice is meaningfully different from no notice at all.

After all, you will have to be able to cover someone if they are sick (typically short time, no notice) - while presumably replacing an employee fully will take longer than two weeks anyway?

> I'm honestly not sure how 2 weeks notice is meaningfully different from no notice at all.

Agreed. 2 weeks feels like a number so small it effectively rounds to 0. I am actually unsure of the minimum notice period here (Australia) but I have typically given 1-3 months notice unless there was a very good reason why I needed to leave sooner.

Right-to-work is about a job being unionized. At-will is probably what you are thinking of.

You are correct. I was punching that out on my phone and should have given it a second read-through.

Right, I've been having the same thought as I interview places and mentally prepare myself to (hopefully) leave my job soon. I'm quite unhappy and just want to turn in my resignation and go. I don't see the purpose it serves to stick around.

Right to work dealt with coercing workers to join unions. Not at all the same thing.

That's certainly how it was sold to the public, but I don't believe that was the intent.