4 ms·

If you are in the US, what is the difference between the "3 month probation period" and the rest of their employment, since you can fire them at any time anyway

If you are in the US, what is the difference between the "3 month probation period" and the rest of their employment, since you can fire them at any time anyways?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jbob2000 11y ago
I'm in Canada and the list of reasons we can fire someone for is very short.
- RightWingRabble 11y ago
  Is performance one of those reasons? Because if it is, the rest of the list doesn't matter.
  - bryanlarsen 11y ago
    Yes, but you must: •set a clear and reasonable standard of performance •communicate the expected level of performance •measure the employee’s performance •take appropriate action to address any concerns •allow a reasonable time for improvement. from: http://www.hrreporter.com/blog/canadian-hr-law/archive/2013/01/09/can-you-dismiss-an-employee-for-cause-due-to-poor-performance#sthash.ovneJL27.dpuf http://www.hrreporter.com/blog/canadian-hr-law/archive/2013/... Which is why pretty much every single employment contract in Canada includes a probationary period.
    - mahyarm 11y ago
      Do Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) style firings get around this?
      - bm1362 11y ago
        I believe PIPs exist to both measure the employee's performance and provide documentation to fire the employee. PIPs exist solely for legal reasons -- it protects the employer from being liable for an unjust firing. I'd be interested to see stats around how many times a PIP turned around and improved the employee.
__derek__ 11y ago
There's effectively no difference, but the general understanding (with some exceptions, e.g., Netflix) is that hiring someone full-time involves a commitment on behalf of both sides to do what's possible to make it work. If there are issues, the employer and employee will try to fix them. With a probationary period that explicitly involves a determination on a longer-term relationship, that's not a given. At least, that's my understanding, and others may correct me.
- aeling 11y ago
  Why do you except Netflix here? I'm not familiar with anything unusual about their hiring, and a couple of quick searches didn't turn up anything. Has their hiring been on HN previously?
  - ghaff 11y ago
    I assume that he's referring to some of the pieces that have been written about Netflix practices such as lack of performance improvement plans. If someone isn't working out for whatever reason--maybe the job requirements have changed--let them go rather than stringing things along. I'm not sure that's inconsistent with trying to make things work though, just not trying to make things work out when you know how the story will end. https://hbr.org/2014/01/how-netflix-reinvented-hr https://hbr.org/2014/01/how-netflix-reinvented-hr

If you are in the US, what is the difference between the "3 month probation period" and the rest of their employment, since you can fire them at any time anyways?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jbob2000 11y ago

I'm in Canada and the list of reasons we can fire someone for is very short.

RightWingRabble 11y ago
Is performance one of those reasons? Because if it is, the rest of the list doesn't matter.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  Yes, but you must: •set a clear and reasonable standard of performance •communicate the expected level of performance •measure the employee’s performance •take appropriate action to address any concerns •allow a reasonable time for improvement. from: http://www.hrreporter.com/blog/canadian-hr-law/archive/2013/01/09/can-you-dismiss-an-employee-for-cause-due-to-poor-performance#sthash.ovneJL27.dpuf http://www.hrreporter.com/blog/canadian-hr-law/archive/2013/... Which is why pretty much every single employment contract in Canada includes a probationary period.
  - mahyarm 11y ago
    Do Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) style firings get around this?
    - bm1362 11y ago
      I believe PIPs exist to both measure the employee's performance and provide documentation to fire the employee. PIPs exist solely for legal reasons -- it protects the employer from being liable for an unjust firing. I'd be interested to see stats around how many times a PIP turned around and improved the employee.

__derek__ 11y ago

There's effectively no difference, but the general understanding (with some exceptions, e.g., Netflix) is that hiring someone full-time involves a commitment on behalf of both sides to do what's possible to make it work. If there are issues, the employer and employee will try to fix them. With a probationary period that explicitly involves a determination on a longer-term relationship, that's not a given. At least, that's my understanding, and others may correct me.

aeling 11y ago
Why do you except Netflix here? I'm not familiar with anything unusual about their hiring, and a couple of quick searches didn't turn up anything. Has their hiring been on HN previously?
- ghaff 11y ago
  I assume that he's referring to some of the pieces that have been written about Netflix practices such as lack of performance improvement plans. If someone isn't working out for whatever reason--maybe the job requirements have changed--let them go rather than stringing things along. I'm not sure that's inconsistent with trying to make things work though, just not trying to make things work out when you know how the story will end. https://hbr.org/2014/01/how-netflix-reinvented-hr https://hbr.org/2014/01/how-netflix-reinvented-hr