How so? At-will cuts both ways. In countries like Finland as well as France it can be quite time-consuming to switch jobs due to the fact you have to give three months or more notice.
That's leaving aside entirely the issue of how at will employment gives companies confidence to hire since they know they can shed employees if things go south.
If you are looking for an end run try binding arbitration, which allows employers to opt out of the legal system.
Because the employer is at a massive advantage. For an employee having gaps in employment is a major thing when it comes to future employment, and can have massive effects on personal finances. For the employer, losing an employee a bit earlier is rarely a major issue (and if it is, they can generally convince people to stay a bit longer by throwing cash at the problem).
It is less relevant in high-paid positions where employees generally have the ability to put aside more of a cushion, but for lower paid employees it can be dramatic.
There's a reason the long notice periods in large parts of Europe are a direct result of decades of union pressure.
> That's leaving aside entirely the issue of how at will employment gives companies confidence to hire since they know they can shed employees if things go south.
If this was a real concern, then we ought to see a persistent problem of high unemployment across the countries with long notice periods, but to my knowledge we don't.
> That's leaving aside entirely the issue of how at will employment gives companies confidence to hire since they know they can shed employees if things go south.
Maybe for unskilled jobs, but the idea that an employer will hire/fire employees at the whims of the market, and there is zero cost to this process does not apply everywhere. There can be significant cost to on-boarding people depending on the industry / position.
The issue is not on-boarding costs. It's statutory requirements or political issues that prevent companies from doing layoffs to respond to changing economic conditions. Layoffs are not impossible in countries like France but they are very hard to do and very expensive. France has a dearth of innovative small companies for this reason because you can't hire aggressively to try to get risky ideas to market.
The effect is that by protecting existing jobs you lose out on future ones. Over time this pretty much cuts you out of any industry where there are waves of creative destruction.
Employers have far more power in the situation. As I said, it's basically an end run around every worker's rights law there is. There might be some small benefits for workers, but, on the whole, it is terrible for them.
