I like the idea of an employee being able to quit at a moment's notice, and that goes hand in hand with the ability of an employer to make the same choice.
To be honest I find the idea of paternalist employers rather revolting.
To be honest I find the idea of paternalist employers rather revolting.
In my mind, it's a matter of inertia - if "protected" is default, then if an employer wishes to have the ability to fire anyone at will, they need to offer concessions - whether it be a higher salary, or the ability to quit at will, or whatever.
However, if "not protected" is the default case, then it becomes far more difficult for an employee to obtain such protection, as it's not beneficial to the employer. And as such, barring anyone who can negotiate their own contract (the minority, generally), most people will remain unprotected. And I believe that to be a problem, for reasons I mentioned elsewhere in this comment thread.
Not even remotely the same.
Because those two, worker and employer do not even remotely share the same power...
The employee just has to show up and do a barely acceptable job to get a steady pay.