>And you can also leave for any reason. It's symmetrical. You don't have this right in some countries - I'd be careful about volunteering to give it up.

That's not symmetrical, or if it is, it's symmetrical in the same way as "heads I win, tails you lose." Being fired and quitting both place the entirety of the risk of unemployment on the employee, there is no counterbalance of power or risk on the part of the employer.

If health insurance wasn't tied to employment in the US, or if there were something like UBI, then the dynamics of at-will employment might be at least more symmetrical.

> there is no counterbalance of power or risk on the part of the employer

If there is no power or risk on the part of the employer then why do some countries have a law requiring that you give the employer a notice period? It's to reduce their risk.

In my country can sued for their damages if you leave without a notice period - real damages such as having to hire more expensive temporary staff to do your job until they can find someone else permanent. That's their risk.

Fair enough, some risk exists, and how much probably depends on the position ... although in my country as far as I'm aware, there is no requirement to give notice (it's just a courtesy) and, of course, no such requirement exists on the part of employers.

In the linked article, it's mentioned that Elon felt a constant need to fire people that he sometimes had to be talked down from, so if the employer risk exists, it doesn't seem to be particularly high in most cases. If the risk for employers was significant, then at-will employment laws wouldn't even exist, because the entire purpose of such laws is to make it arbitrarily easy to fire employees.

The only way at-will employment could truly be symmetrical is if I could walk into work and literally fire any of my managers or the CEO with the same ease with which they could fire me.

But of course, actually applying the power dynamic of at-will employment both ways would just be insane wouldn't it?

> And you can also leave for any reason. It's symmetrical. You don't have this right in some countries - I'd be careful about volunteering to give it up.

False dilemma [1]. There's no reason to assume that by giving up at-will employment, you'll also lose the right to resign for any reason. In fact, there are lots of countries where you can resign for any reason, but can't be fired for every reason.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

The person I was replying to said 'at-will employment laws ... I just don't get how we just can't over turn them.' The law is both parts of it. You probably wouldn't want to overturn the law, because you'd overturn your protection as well.

At least in the states near me that have tried (unsuccessfully ) to pass at will laws, no part of the law that I saw would have taken away employees rights to resign at anytime they wanted for any reason. Is this actually part of at will laws else where?

We had the right to leave a job long before at-will employment laws were in vogue.

You really think the relationship between a boss and an employee is symmetrical?

> You really think the relationship between a boss and an employee is symmetrical?

I did not say that. You've either mis-read what I said or you're wilfully misunderstanding.

I said that the law is symmetrical. I didn't say the relationship was. I also didn't say that the risk was.