Why would anyone stand for it? Just stay home 'sick', or roll in late, take an actual hour for your lunch (scandalous!), take your legally required breaks, do the bare minimum, what are they gonna do, fire you?
Stuff like this continues because workers don't seem to realize they CAN just leave.
No it's not. It's absolutely normal in Germany.
> Why would anyone stand for it?
Because it goes both ways. The employer has to adhere to the same period. This gives some safety for both parties. The employee can search for a new job if they are let go and the employer can plan for at least a quarter.
That said, a one-sided clause would not even be legal here.
You have to realize that the US governments have repeatedly taken then position that non executives do not have rights. There’s the concept of a “right to work” law in the US, and what that means is that a company can fire you at any time for any or no reason. Historically the government would use the policy to break strikes by having the police kill the strikes en mass, and as we see with the recent rail strike, the government will just make strike action illegal if you ever actually attempt it.
Dystopia. Who wants to be a customer or patient being helped by a worker feeling that dire?
Somewhere between massive weekly turnover vs "paying to quit" has to be some sanity but individual workers have no bargaining power against corporations and governments.
That's true, but only if you play their game. Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.