What is the issue with "at will"? That benefits both sides - unless I'm unique in the fact that I've never had a negative experience with it?
"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_...
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Again, I don't really mind, but it was surprising.
If you just stopped going to work one day, and didn't tell anybody, there is nothing anybody could do about it.