4 ms·

I would think that if you are confident that you're qualified for the job then you shouldn't need to worry about any probation period. Job security between the

by eljimmy 11y ago

I would think that if you are confident that you're qualified for the job then you shouldn't need to worry about any probation period. Job security between the two is an illusion. It doesn't matter if you're contract or full-time. You can lose one just as easily as you can lose the other.

Jemaclus 11y ago
I'm not sure that's true. (I don't disagree, I'm just not sure.) I think an employer might be more willing to take a risk on a candidate they're not sure of if it's only for a few weeks. "Well, we're 50/50 on this guy, so let's bring him in for 2 weeks and see how it goes." On the other hand, if it's a permanent hire right off the bat, they'll want to be a fair bit better than just 50/50.
- HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago
  Answers to this would be all over the map, but I'm going with "no." If I/we make a job offer to someone, it's because we think you're a good fit and you will be productive. Bringing someone in for 2 weeks, then someone else in for a month, then another guy for 2 months wastes even more time than just interviewing them each for half a day. Not to mention the uncertainty and morale effects on the rest of the team.
  - Jemaclus 11y ago
    You might be right. I think you're underestimating the psychology of the contract idea, but hey, what do I know. :)
    - steven2012 11y ago
      At least in California, you can be fired at any time for any reason. You are essentially on contract whether you know it or not. So whether it's 3 month or 1 year, it really doesn't matter. What matters is if you want to have the job, and if you're qualified for it. I think it's better if there's a new hire that isn't working out, to just give them some severance pay and fire them quickly. Obviously you should be hiring with good intentions and believe that they will do well after due diligence, so 50/50 isn't a good probability to hire someone, it just causes a lot of disruption and lot of bad will.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Virtually every state in the country is at-will, which is a good thing. But the norms of this industry put the onus on the employer to (a) verify that candidates can execute before extending offers to them and (b) demonstrate conclusively that the fault is with the employee before terminating. A trial period essentially tells candidates "your first three months on this job are a kind of extended interview". People are rejected after interviews based on standards of evidence far, far lower than the ones commonly used to terminate employees.
        steven2012 11y ago
        I'm fine with employers hiring in good faith, and then firing within a few months if the candidate isn't a good fit. It's far more efficient and easier for everyone that way, instead of dragging down the team, creating a burden on others, etc.
- cballard 11y ago
  Why? If it's at-will, they can fire him at any time regardless.
tptacek 11y ago
No, that's not true. A full-time offer is a commitment to full-time employment. A three-month trial period is an overt refusal to offer that commitment. Software firms can be ruthless about at-will employment, but they can't do that while retaining staff and recruiting new staff effectively. Companies that are ruthless about at-will employment are ostracized, which is why that kind of ruthlessness is rare in the industry.
- _dps 11y ago
  > but they can't do that while retaining staff and recruiting new staff effectively I wish I had a better way to ask this, but... can you actually provide any evidence this is true? It is directly counter to my ~10 years of experience, and I've seen it at many companies that are home-run-level successful (i.e. there's no way one could qualify them as having trouble recruiting). I'm not sure I could name even one company that is "ostracized" for their hiring practices. The only way that I can reconcile this theory with my experience is if I take the maximally extreme definition of "ruthless" ... something like firing someone in their first week after enticing them to leave a job and move across country. That, of course, will get you a bad reputation quickly. But I personally have not seen measurable negative consequences for firing alleged low performers for little to no reason within a 2-3 month period. I would be curious (and pleased) to hear if this is just an unusual sample of experiences I've had. Edit: let me clarify that when I say "I haven't seen measurable negative consequences" I don't mean that I have done that to anybody. But it has happened to upwards of 10 people I know.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Probably not. There's a "fire-fast" culture that is probably abused more than applied properly. Again, my objection to "trial period" is that it's an overt refusal to make a commitment to a candidate; at the end of a trial period, you can be released for all the same reasons as you could be at an interview: poor culture fit, lack of "passion", &c. Do unscrupulous companies fire for culture fit? I'm sure there are lots that do; I wish I knew more about which ones they were.
- orless 11y ago

by eljimmy 11y ago

Jemaclus 11y ago

I'm not sure that's true. (I don't disagree, I'm just not sure.) I think an employer might be more willing to take a risk on a candidate they're not sure of if it's only for a few weeks. "Well, we're 50/50 on this guy, so let's bring him in for 2 weeks and see how it goes." On the other hand, if it's a permanent hire right off the bat, they'll want to be a fair bit better than just 50/50.

HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago
Answers to this would be all over the map, but I'm going with "no." If I/we make a job offer to someone, it's because we think you're a good fit and you will be productive. Bringing someone in for 2 weeks, then someone else in for a month, then another guy for 2 months wastes even more time than just interviewing them each for half a day. Not to mention the uncertainty and morale effects on the rest of the team.
- Jemaclus 11y ago
  You might be right. I think you're underestimating the psychology of the contract idea, but hey, what do I know. :)
  - steven2012 11y ago
    At least in California, you can be fired at any time for any reason. You are essentially on contract whether you know it or not. So whether it's 3 month or 1 year, it really doesn't matter. What matters is if you want to have the job, and if you're qualified for it. I think it's better if there's a new hire that isn't working out, to just give them some severance pay and fire them quickly. Obviously you should be hiring with good intentions and believe that they will do well after due diligence, so 50/50 isn't a good probability to hire someone, it just causes a lot of disruption and lot of bad will.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Virtually every state in the country is at-will, which is a good thing. But the norms of this industry put the onus on the employer to (a) verify that candidates can execute before extending offers to them and (b) demonstrate conclusively that the fault is with the employee before terminating. A trial period essentially tells candidates "your first three months on this job are a kind of extended interview". People are rejected after interviews based on standards of evidence far, far lower than the ones commonly used to terminate employees.
      - steven2012 11y ago
        I'm fine with employers hiring in good faith, and then firing within a few months if the candidate isn't a good fit. It's far more efficient and easier for everyone that way, instead of dragging down the team, creating a burden on others, etc.
cballard 11y ago
Why? If it's at-will, they can fire him at any time regardless.

tptacek 11y ago

No, that's not true. A full-time offer is a commitment to full-time employment. A three-month trial period is an overt refusal to offer that commitment. Software firms can be ruthless about at-will employment, but they can't do that while retaining staff and recruiting new staff effectively. Companies that are ruthless about at-will employment are ostracized, which is why that kind of ruthlessness is rare in the industry.

_dps 11y ago
> but they can't do that while retaining staff and recruiting new staff effectively I wish I had a better way to ask this, but... can you actually provide any evidence this is true? It is directly counter to my ~10 years of experience, and I've seen it at many companies that are home-run-level successful (i.e. there's no way one could qualify them as having trouble recruiting). I'm not sure I could name even one company that is "ostracized" for their hiring practices. The only way that I can reconcile this theory with my experience is if I take the maximally extreme definition of "ruthless" ... something like firing someone in their first week after enticing them to leave a job and move across country. That, of course, will get you a bad reputation quickly. But I personally have not seen measurable negative consequences for firing alleged low performers for little to no reason within a 2-3 month period. I would be curious (and pleased) to hear if this is just an unusual sample of experiences I've had. Edit: let me clarify that when I say "I haven't seen measurable negative consequences" I don't mean that I have done that to anybody. But it has happened to upwards of 10 people I know.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Probably not. There's a "fire-fast" culture that is probably abused more than applied properly. Again, my objection to "trial period" is that it's an overt refusal to make a commitment to a candidate; at the end of a trial period, you can be released for all the same reasons as you could be at an interview: poor culture fit, lack of "passion", &c. Do unscrupulous companies fire for culture fit? I'm sure there are lots that do; I wish I knew more about which ones they were.
orless 11y ago