5 ms·
Because hiring people that you think you'll probably fire is not a nice thing to do: people quit jobs or reject other offers based on it. I was involved in a h
by matthewowen 10y ago
Because hiring people that you think you'll probably fire is not a nice thing to do: people quit jobs or reject other offers based on it.
I was involved in a hiring decision once where we were on the fence but made the hire because we really needed to fill the position. The person didn't work out for all the reasons we expected, and we fired them ~3 months later. It was really shitty, and I will never do it again. It's counterproductive, and it's unethical.
- tboyd47 10y agoI don't understand why this is so terrible. Having been rejected for new jobs after clearing a lengthy interview process many times, I would much rather an employer just give me a chance. Then if I fail, at least I'll know it's not for me.
- obsurveyor 10y agoThink about it again in terms of what the parent said in the second paragraph: You, tboyd47, are hired but the employer correctly anticipated during the interview process that you would not be able to succeed but needed a body and you were the closest match. Did you really fail if you never had a chance? That's why he said it was unproductive and unethical.
- tboyd47 10y agoIf I get a job, stay in it for 3 months, and still can't succeed in it, then I would consider that a fair chance no matter what the person really thought of me. Not being given the job at all (and, if they hire like most companies I know, not being given a reason why) would make me feel more like I haven't been given a chance.