Side note: Over here employers must give you a notice of termination, the length of which depends on how long you worked for the company. For employees with over a decade of loyalty, this period can be a year or more. The intent is that a worker can get enough time to find a new employment. The regulation has a perverse effect. As an employee who is on notice is generally no longer trusted to prioritise the company's…
If you say that it fails in practice, is that your opinion or is that a general opinion? Presumably, in some cases the regulation that you mention works the way it was intended? I wouldn't mind not working in the notice period; it would be a plus for me. The other question is also of course: What kind of a law should supercede such a law? I am not saying I disagree with you or anything like that, but what I am saying…
The hiring is another issue. Over here there is always a 6 month 'trial' period when you hire someone. During those first six months, both the employer and the employee can end the contract without repercussions. This acknowledges that no screening/hiring process will be perfect, and that bad matches do happen.
Employment law and regulation is not easy to change as it impacts the lives of so many. My personal opinion is that even then this is just part of an even larger rethink we need in an age where most 'work' (not all) has long ceased to be a productive contribution to society, and has mealy become a game for a polarized redistribution of 'wealth', that is not just viciously usurping our lives and the environment, but due to its penchant for 'growth' those of future generations as well.