3 ms·
One problem with "take on people for a trial period" is that it's more risky for the candidate too. If you happen to be unemployed then doing a trial-work-perio
by pm215 10y ago
One problem with "take on people for a trial period" is that it's more risky for the candidate too. If you happen to be unemployed then doing a trial-work-period is obviously an improvement on not working at all, but otherwise I'm going to be reluctant to quit my current job for an "after a couple of months we may say sorry, didn't work out" setup. (That's different from the current standard '3-6 months is a probationary period' because right now the assumption is that unless you actually screw up you get the job, so it's not an in-practice risk for a competent employee. With a more definite "trial period" approach the employer is going to be more likely to say 'no' at the end -- otherwise the "pick who to trial" question is still just as high-stakes as "who do we hire" was and they haven't gained anything from the change.)
- jarcane 10y agoThat's a good point, and one I didn't think about. Cooking is, on the whole, a much more unstable industry in terms of work experience and generally the kinds of restaurants that even do a stage are the kinds it's even worth taking the risk on even if you are employed. One possible solution might be to make it a remote contract. "Work on this bug/commit/sample project at your leisure, commit by no later X date". Then moonlighting applicants or even just people who don't want to risk being off the search during the trial period can still participate on the same playing field, though they would potentially still be disadvantaged compared to unemployed applicants. I don't think though that a little bias there is entirely a bad idea personally, though you could possibly argue the merits either way.