Any employer that expects otherwise should be avoided at all costs. Admittedly, even this is not entirely full-proof, but it is the bare minimum.
Any employer that expects otherwise should be avoided at all costs. Admittedly, even this is not entirely full-proof, but it is the bare minimum.
Companies hiring can legally ask for some really personally risky actions. And some will.
You should never assume they have your best interests at heart. You can push back against this, and there's a respectful, reasonable way to do that in the process.
Broadly, this is the reason boxing bouts begin with "Protect yourself at all times." Because there's no taking back a sucker punch after the bell that dropped you to the mat.
Ultimately, the best advice I'd give would be to prepare your moves, so as to avoid putting your future self in bad, must-act situations. Be someone who can afford to pass on an offer, if the company acts unreasonably, versus someone who has to say yes to requests like this.
The point I want to make here is, that no one on the team had the balls to tell me that they are unhappy with my performance and instead told my boss very late. I did not have a chance to improve or change anything. It can happen to anyone and any time.
In hindsight this is still the best thing that could have happened to me.
How can you commit to a start date if you don't give notice?
It's polite to give at least two weeks notice, but to meet that social norm you just need to only agree to start dates at least 2 weeks into the future. (And if you want to give more than 2 weeks notice... well... that just means you need to shift your start date farther).
If you leaving suddenly wouldn't cost society any more than you getting sick suddenly, I don't think the norm does any good. That's true of jobs where you're a replaceable cog (like a clerk at a store) with no need to transfer knowledge.
On the other hand if you're at a job where you have long lasting context, which it is painful to lose, it would be bad for society to have it be the norm that you quit without transferring that knowledge.
I don't think that this norm needs to be tied to the norm about how you're compensated (provided that you are fairly compensated, but if you're not, you shouldn't have taken the job in the first place), whether that compensation includes notice when you're being fired, or not, seems irrelevant to whether or not it should be considered your responsibility to give notice. The two situations are only superficially similar.
But I also think this misses the point, plenty of people do plenty of rude things when they win the lottery (so it's not a good barometer for what is polite), and the circumstances are substantially different when you're leaving because you now have "f u money" rather than leaving because you're going to do the same thing for a different employer (so it's not a analogous situation).
Circumstances where I wouldn't give advanced notice are cases where I felt I was being mistreated (being rude is worth leaving earlier, plus I have minimal sympathy), or there was an opportunity that really couldn't wait (being rude is sometimes worthwhile - it's a balancing act).
I imagine your contract is binding (though I'm no lawyer and it may depend jurisdiction), it's just not a common term in my experience/the experience of people I know.
Have the new company commit to a start date in 30+ days, and then give the notice.