4 ms·

The reason companies have to do so damn much checking upon hiring is because the employment laws make it damn near impossible to recover from a mistake. If you

The reason companies have to do so damn much checking upon hiring is because the employment laws make it damn near impossible to recover from a mistake. If you want to make a difference in this space, don't always vote for whatever issue the screws the rich companies.

bsanr2 7y ago
I'm not sure where this comes from. Any halfway-competent company in a right-to-work state can drop you like a sack of potatoes with no cause or notice, and you won't be able to do anything unless you have a documented history of them doing something stupidly, obviously discriminatory.
- mikedilger 7y ago
  It's coming from California. Sorry, that's my only experience.
astura 7y ago
Definitely not true in America, most low skill jobs I've worked about 40%+ of employees ended up fired. Most for "just not working out" rather than blatant insubordination.
- mikedilger 7y ago
  California is different than the rest of America, and that's where my experience is from. Sun paid me out 6 months severence pay... it didn't seem fair to them. While working there it took about 6 months of intermittant dedicated effort for our manager to fire one of our co-workers. In NZ I was hired via a 90-day trial where the employer could let me go for no reason given within 90 days. Without that trial, I probably wouldn't have gotten the job because my resume had a big gap. But 10 years on and I'm still working for the guy who hired me.
  - astura 7y ago
    Well that doesn't mean that it's California law that's the problem (California is an “at-will” state like the vast majority of states), but Sun's policies. Usually corporate policies only pays out severance for layoffs, not firings for poor performance, and severance is hardly required under California law. A lot of white collar employers will usually try to work with poor performers to improve performance, but that's definitely not a given. >In NZ I was hired via a 90-day trial where the employer could let me go for no reason given within 90 days. This is extremely common in America too, it's called a "probationary period." My husband didn't even get any benefits during the six month probationary period at his last job. There's also "contract to hire," which is, again, not uncommon in America. The new employee is employed by an external company for a set period of time and the employer can decide to hire him or her (or not) when the contract ends. Internships are also used as a "try before you buy." Some employers mostly hire former interns for junior positions, that way they already know their skills and work ethic. I worked at two such companies where the vast majority of juniors were former interns.

bsanr2 7y ago

I'm not sure where this comes from. Any halfway-competent company in a right-to-work state can drop you like a sack of potatoes with no cause or notice, and you won't be able to do anything unless you have a documented history of them doing something stupidly, obviously discriminatory.

mikedilger 7y ago
It's coming from California. Sorry, that's my only experience.

astura 7y ago

Definitely not true in America, most low skill jobs I've worked about 40%+ of employees ended up fired. Most for "just not working out" rather than blatant insubordination.

mikedilger 7y ago
California is different than the rest of America, and that's where my experience is from. Sun paid me out 6 months severence pay... it didn't seem fair to them. While working there it took about 6 months of intermittant dedicated effort for our manager to fire one of our co-workers. In NZ I was hired via a 90-day trial where the employer could let me go for no reason given within 90 days. Without that trial, I probably wouldn't have gotten the job because my resume had a big gap. But 10 years on and I'm still working for the guy who hired me.
- astura 7y ago
  Well that doesn't mean that it's California law that's the problem (California is an “at-will” state like the vast majority of states), but Sun's policies. Usually corporate policies only pays out severance for layoffs, not firings for poor performance, and severance is hardly required under California law. A lot of white collar employers will usually try to work with poor performers to improve performance, but that's definitely not a given. >In NZ I was hired via a 90-day trial where the employer could let me go for no reason given within 90 days. This is extremely common in America too, it's called a "probationary period." My husband didn't even get any benefits during the six month probationary period at his last job. There's also "contract to hire," which is, again, not uncommon in America. The new employee is employed by an external company for a set period of time and the employer can decide to hire him or her (or not) when the contract ends. Internships are also used as a "try before you buy." Some employers mostly hire former interns for junior positions, that way they already know their skills and work ethic. I worked at two such companies where the vast majority of juniors were former interns.