We accept it because philosophically and logically it makes perfect sense that either party to a transaction should be able to revoke consent at any time for any (or no) reason, absent an explicit contract to the contrary.
Showing up for work on Monday is no guarantee you will show up on Tuesday. Correspondingly employing you on Monday is no guarantee you will be employed on Tuesday.
I think it's a bit silly to expect any other state of affairs.
The scenario you describe is only possible if there is only one employer.
The moment you have multiple employers to choose from (ie an actual market for labor) then the insecurity is removed. Indeed, for the most part, if you can deliver value, you can find someone to pay you for it and your bills will get paid.
It's not a matter of my view. The people you describe are only screwed if:
- they have no savings or access to credit
AND
- they get fired on short notice
AND
- they can't get another job
I'm not sure that making the employer fire them with a longer notice period, given that they can't get another job, means they won't be screwed. Therefore, I don't think there is any utility in so restricting the employer.
Not having savings is bad and dangerous. That's not caused by labor law.
What kind of jobs can you find on a single day's notice? Abusive gig work only.
Where I live the notice period is three months. I don't think you can imagine how nice it is to not have to worry about being fired on the spot, and when it happens you know you will have time to sort it out.
To me it sounds like drivers support Uber because of some dystopian Stockholm syndrome where it's their only hope in a failed system.