I was on the phone with someone when I had an epiphany. The two week notice is a social norm that is pressured upon employees with no requirements, and exists solely to cover the employers end.
The matter of it being given is up to the employee and we hear of people quitting with not notice all the time. You probably know someone who wouldn't dream of quitting a job without handing in their two weeks notice. You may know someone who snorts at the notion.
In it's current form as a worker handing in your notice that you are about to quit offers you no benefit.
What if we change that?
What if..starting now the giving of a two weeks notice is not a half baked requirement, but a testament of a good employer?
In other words putting in your notice is a consensus effort made of the person who is quitting done in good faith for the employer (as is currently) – but also a green flag for future people of that role.
You as a jobseeker can ask a hiring manager if the last jobseeker handed in their two weeks notice. This question once used to shame workers into not helping the poor company who would replace them in a hairs breath, now faces the consistent question
“Did the last worker hand in their two weeks?”
A yes would be a green flag, to the point that HR would soon lie about this thus watering the full use of the question. A confused no would solidify any questions the jobseeker may have, allow them to use their skill elsewhere and not waste time on a company that was not handed their notice.
In bulk this simple change to a society question would change the landscape of hiring. Handing in your notice is not a mark of shame, but a mark of shit, and a warning to anyone else who might fill that role.
Do I think this would have long lasting impart? no.
But it would change the meaning of the phrase.
After all handing in that notice always was your choice.
Why not make it worth while?