I always figured that was part of some implicit contract. "You'll hire me for a job I can't immediately do, and I'll treat growing into my job as the number on

I always figured that was part of some implicit contract. "You'll hire me for a job I can't immediately do, and I'll treat growing into my job as the number one priority". With the job market as it is, it's unrealistic to expect people to hire candidates who can't help lighten the load within a week or two of their start date. I wish there was a less-risky way to 'try out' candidates. Someone I know works in boutique finance and whenever they bring on someone at a junior level, they're on a 60 day probation and the partners decide whether or not to retain them. I think it's easier for them to do it because their applicant pool / candidates are predominantly young, white/asian, male, and high-achieving. They've never been sued by a candidate they've let go and they've found some real 'diamonds in the rough'. I can't imagine that they could say the same if they let go of 40 mothers with children. But it does highlight a solution path - make it less risky for companies to evaluate candidates although I don't know how to do that without eroding worker protections.