4 ms·

>employer simply doesn't extend the employment Simple! Simple for the employer but a major issue for the employee. Americans value corporations over people. I

• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• piaste 9y ago
  Depends. If you're unemployed, a two-month stint at this kind of company is certainly better for you than an interview rejection. You get two months' salary, hopefully learn something, and if you think that it would look worse than unemployment on your resume you can always omit it (maybe bring it up in person where you can explain the context). If, however, you're already employed, joining this company looks like an awful proposition. Assuming they don't lie to their recruits about their likelihood to pass the probationary period, they're gonna have a really hard time recruiting anybody who already has a stable and not-horrible job. This is gonna screw the corporation pretty hard as soon as they need to hire senior people rather than startup cannon fodder.
• dozzie 9y ago
  >> employer simply doesn't extend the employment > Simple! Simple for the employer but a major issue for the employee. Well, yes, but from what I see around me, it's a standard practice to first hire for the probationary period of three months, so an employee has to take this into the account. And unless the employee is highly incompetent or the employer is outright hostile, the probationary period usually ends with regular employment. It's good that the Europe is generally favourable towards the employees, but employers also need a little slack, don't you think? We can't only put obstacles in their way.