"What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between [workmen and masters], whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.

"It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate."

-- Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 8.

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_...

There's seems to be some kind of American myth that "at will"-employment is for the benefit of the employee, or in the very least of equal benefit to both parties.

That may be true for educated middle to upper class professionals, without children or other dependants, but I have a hard time seeing how it benefits the average worker.

The issue is that each side has vastly different costs to the employee leaving.

Imagine we have a 100 person company. If an employer loses an employee, they are down 1/100 of their production until they can find someone to replace them. If an employee loses their job, the lose 100% of their production.

Unless the company is very small or the employee is insanely important, the cost is just not equal for each side.

Employers have all the financial leverage and employees have none. Even people with highly-sought-after skills and experience are more easily replaced than some of those people can find a new job with comparable compensation.

So the two sides arrive at the "correct" amount of pay. How is that a problem? If someone wants to offer an employee more money, shorter commute, better perks, personal unicorn to fetch coffee from Starbucks, employee tells the employer "bye" and moves.

If an employer finds someone who can do employees job better or cheaper, employer tells that employee "Bye!"

Will the job market become commoditized? Sure. And it is absolutely great. Commoditization increases access to products of the said market.

[Edit: It is highly amusing to see people's reaction in this thread. It is akin to a toddler stomping his foot saying "Mommy, I don't want to!"]

In theory, yes, the parties arrive at the "correct" amount of pay, and the transaction goes forward.

In practice, however, the typical employee only has one source of income (the job from their employer), while the employer has many employees. This makes the employee less able to survive loss of the job than the employer to survive loss of the employee. That's what leads to the imbalance of power between employee and employer.

As an individual working for a corporation, you have to keep in mind that you're depending on a sociopathic entity for your survival. Said sociopathic entity is legally mandated to act in the best interests of shareholders and investors, and to disregard your interests entirely unless they happen to align. This makes them as dangerous as a wild animal, but, fortunately, more predictable.

This attitude is literally why Trump was elected president. Multinationals can just pay people in other countries much less for similar output. They have the leverage and former employees have none.

What's the benefit to the employee?

Well, it's a small thing but being able to leave on a moment's notice and not having it considered a breach of contract is helpful.

I was a bit surprised to find that instead of being a matter of courtesy, I'm contractually obligated to give 6 weeks' notice before leaving. I don't mind, really, but it's still kind of ridiculous.

Whether it's ridiculous or not is a matter of perspective. In Europe the minimum is 1-3 months, though there's often a trial period where the obligated notice is 1 week or less.

In practice though the employee/employer are free to upon termination sign an agreement reducing the dismissal period to whatever they feel is appropriate. Few employers wants to keep an employee that's decided to quit longer than strictly necessary.

This is indeed in Europe.

Again, I don't really mind, but it was surprising.

I sincerely doubt that the contract that you are in is enforceable.

If you just stopped going to work one day, and didn't tell anybody, there is nothing anybody could do about it.

They can sue you if you're in breach of a contract. However, unless it were some special circumstance, I expect they'd make do with just withholding any payments.

In exchange, the employer also has to give as much notice before firing you, right? I would say that's a reasonably fair trade.

In India four to six months notice is extremely common requirement.

The employee can take another job whenever they want to? The alternative is a contract that says I can't fire you absent these specified reasons for X period of time and you can't leave absent these specified reasons no matter how much you hate it.

Given the inherent imbalance of power, another alternative is to remedy that imbalance by giving the favour of flexibility to the worker rather than the employer.