They should. Not out of charity, but out of labor protection. You take on a worker, you take on a responsibility.

Ok, and what responsibility do workers have? Should they be compelled to stay in jobs they no longer want?

Have you considered what an increase to employment costs might do to broader employment?

The larger the company, the larger the power differential between employer and employee. Power comes with responsibility.

This doesn't answer my question at all. I asked about employees, not companies.

What responsibilities should employees have?

First of all, we are talking about ethical responsibility here, not contractual or legal responsibilities. Generally, one’s responsibilities are related to the possible harm caused or contributed to by one’s actions that one is in control of. Concerning employees quitting their job, for example the tech lead of a small startup whose survival critically depends on their knowledge can be considered to have a bigger responsibility to not quit on short notice and without compelling reasons out of their control than, for example, a dispensable and easily replaceable entry-level dev in a big tech company.

Companies however also have some responsibility to not make themselves too dependent on individual employees, to the extent practical. The responsibility for the harm caused to the company by an employee quitting is therefore shared. This is in contrast to a layoff, where the employee usually shares very little responsibility for the harm caused to them by the layoff, because it’s largely out of their control.

Imposing that on companies by whatever means(legal, social) will lead to less hiring overall to make it low risk. As much as it sucks to get laid off, I am sure a lot of laid off folks who were hired in the last 2 years would be glad that they have Google on their resume. That will set them up for a good career, since Google is known for a rigorous interview process.

So, going through a rigorous interview process is indicative of expected performance on the job? Shouldn’t the work they did for two years matter more than the few hours of interviewing and solving puzzles?

"Shouldn't", "ought to" etc. don't hold in real life regardless of what we want or think as devs.

A good illustration of this: https://old.reddit.com//r/recruitinghell/comments/qhg5jo/thi...

The reality is that having passed an interview at a FAANG company, having any work experience at a FAANG company on your resume opens a lot of doors while looking for a new job, even if it's a few months. Being laid off from a FAANG company is still bad, but if it was part of a broad layoff for cost reasons then it's not bad.

You can argue till you're blue in the face about how this is a bad thing but that does not change reality that those laid off from Google are better off in a job search than people laid off from random companies that no one heard of.

You can argue till your blue in the face that it opens doors and another can just as easily argue that it closes doors for reasons not worth discussing.

My point had nothing to do with either argument as it not interesting to me. My criticism was in the statement regarding the interview process validating the value of an ex FAANG employee over their experience from working at FAANG.

> another can just as easily argue that it closes doors for reasons not worth discussing

Why is that not worth discussing? Because there aren't any or are pretty weak?

Because it expands this discussion into yet another area I never intended to address.