2 ms·
I think the biggest cost isn't termination itself, but rather the paperwork/overhead involving with a new full-time employee combined with the risk of wrongful
by mreome 6y ago
I think the biggest cost isn't termination itself, but rather the paperwork/overhead involving with a new full-time employee combined with the risk of wrongful termination lawsuits. Even if such a lawsuit is entirely baseless, it takes time and money to deal with.
It's the reason so many companies prefer contractors to short-term full-time employees. You avoid all the new-hire overhead, and you can always renew someone's contract for another six months, but if/when you want to let them go you just let the contract end and that's it.
- jjav 6y ago> It's the reason so many companies prefer contractors to short-term full-time employees. I don't know that they do, at least not here in Silicon Valley. Finding short-term and/or part-time contract/consulting roles is difficult. I did consulting here for a few years (2017-18) and it was a challenge since companies only want regular full time employees. Eventually I quit swimming against the current and went back to a full time role.
- mreome 6y agoI've always been under the impression that the norms in Silicon Valley are often different from the rest of the country, so that's not surprising. My experience is limited to the North-East/East-Coast though, so it's possible that this is a more regional thing, or possibly even specific to the industries I work in. It's possible that state-level laws come into play here too. For example the fact that non-competes are not enforceable in California, where they are generally enforceable on the East-Coast could be a factor in the kind of relationships companies favor.