Originally Posted by arclight610
How about this example:
Say I am a recruiter for a company based out of California, and I attend a career fair at a university in Colorado looking for a couple of engineers. At the career fair, I get 30 interested applicants. I conduct a hasty interview and decide to "hire" them all on the spot, with a promise of a job starting a month after they graduate with a salary higher than any other employer at the career fair is offering.
Graduation comes, and the students need to start preparing for their new job. So, they all sign leases in California and pay lots of money to move their stuff out there. After Day 1 of work, my company decides to keep the 2 that they want and fire the other 28. Essentially, using the hiring process as one large screening event. So, now those 28 people are up the creek without a paddle because they were led on by the company and were able to be fired without reason.
Would only work once. Yes, it sucks for those 28 folks, but what would happen the next year is that if an employer required someone to move, they'd have to offer in writing that they'll cover the relocation expenses and whatever fees are incurred in breaking a lease if things don't work out.
You can play "what if" forever. I can make up a dozen scenarios where employees screw employers. The fact is that no system is perfect.
Allow employees to quit. Allow employers to fire people. That's the only way to have a truly equal balance of power.
Now, it won't be equal for everyone--the more replaceable the employee (ie, less skill / experience required to do the job) the more likely the employer is to be willing to fire, and vice versa. But that's just the way life works.