>>>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Yeah, that's what I was responding to. Tore's explanation of the Norwegian model makes it sound pretty rational. The government just requires there be a clear employer/employee contract. Of course, that would probably be unpopular here since good contracts reduce litigious opportunities and we have a heck of a trial-lawyer lobby (currently pumping massive amounts of money into the majority party)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>But I think your overall point is the key - everybody knows the rules so there are few problems. That seems to be the key for successful business relationships in general.
>>
>>A concern with that system I have is that a person who is desperate for work would not bother with trying to achieve the best contract he would otherwise in order to gain the job. He may be stuck in a contract that favors the employer and would be difficult to get out of.
>
>But that's the nature of any supply and demand situation. Employers who really need people to fill certain positions would have to offer contracts they might otherwise not want to offer. If somebody is desperate for a job they will, of course, have to accept less than their ideal conditions. But that's what happens now.

Except that here, if you accept a job that is less than ideal, you are not locked into it by law.