>>>>>>>>And if you have some pending jobs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course it won't help your career in the future to be so unprofessional and discourteous to an employer, but I don't see how the government can force you to stay and finish them or why you would want an employee finishing those jobs under that circumstance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I just question the idea that professional behavior and common decency can be legislated. Of course everyone involved should have legal redress fro damages, but forcing somebody to work or forcing and employer to keep an employee who is unsatisfactory just doesn't seem like a good idea. Contract law can cover this kind of stuff, but "forbidding" certain behavior in this way seems an example of legislators being overly impressed with their power to mold human behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As I wrote in another message, these laws are rarely used. And since everyone knows about these laws, it's really no problem. If someone suddenly just walks out the door, the boss most likely does not want to see the person anymore also. But, if this person has some responsibilities or pending work, he may be required to findish the work in such a way that someone else can take over. If the person refuses, he risks being sued and may end up paying for all the damages he has caused and more. Again, this rarely happens.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually that's pretty much the way it is here - especialy the part about "he risks being sued and may end up paying for all the damages he has caused and more". I thought yo meant is was a matter of criminal law that you couldn't leave the job as opposed to contract law.
>>>>
>>>>I believe he did, though he can clarify, but his original post said:
>>>>
>>>>I don't know how the laws are in Ireland, but here an employee must remain at work for a period relative to the time he has been employed. It's illegal for him to leave before this period ends, unless he gets a mutual agreement with his boss to leave earlier.
>>>>
>>>>The word illegal kind of jumps out atcha.
>>>
>>>I have no better word than illegal in this case. You break a contract, and risk being sued.
>>>
>>In this case 'contract' limits employee rights. When an employee knows that his supposed leave is conditioned by some paper that, even theoretically, can be a source of litigation, it could make him more subservient to a boss than it could be required by normal business relations. Here, in States, only certain (consulting or top management) positions are subjected to contracts. It is done, imo, because people applying for such positions have certain experience and can negotiate fair conditions. Ordinary job applicants do not have this experience so contracts could infringe on their rights.
>
>The contracts here are more in favour of the employees than the employers. We have absolute minimum requirements for the contracts which mostly take care of the employees and their rights.

I suspected it, but it still infringes on job mobility. As I see it, your system is skewed to job security, i.e. persons willing to stay on job are benefited, but those looking for change are impeded. It means, in general, that younger folks with abilities could be disadvantaged. Here, a company could wait 2 weeks for a right person, but I am unsure if it would do it for e.g. 2 months. I understand if system is uniform then everyone will wait for 2 months, but then it would affect business mobility.