3 ms·

I wish America would adopt what I've seen in some European countries -- a paradigm where they introduce a fixed-time contract first, then only hire you if they

I wish America would adopt what I've seen in some European countries -- a paradigm where they introduce a fixed-time contract first, then only hire you if they like you after the contract. I have seen that in some jobs in America, but just not programming jobs.

Jach 5y ago
It happens in programming jobs here but in different ways. The general style I think you're thinking of seems more likely to me for startups to try experimenting with (and more informally), but we also have a different style where you work for a general contracting agency who has you work for another company for a fixed term. Some of those after the fixed term can transform into that other company hiring you directly (and giving you higher pay not cut by the contracting company, benefits, etc. that you lacked as a contractor), or if not the contracting company helping you find a new company to contract for. The final style I can think of is already institutionalized at big companies for entry level roles in the form of hiring interns almost done with college. They work for you for a few months of the summer (often at equivalent 'hourly' salaries as a senior role) and if you like them, you offer them a full time position (at a lower entry level salary) starting next summer after they graduate. It can be a smart way to get talent that doesn't yet know it's great, or will become great, without paying a premium. The biggest problem when hiring people with experience though, and why the probation style is pretty rare in the direct form I think you're thinking of, is that it's going to filter out the best people -- just like many other too onerous hiring practices filter them. They're just not going to put up with it when they have much better options. For Europe to the extent such a practice works at all is probably related to how universal it is for employees and employers to have a symmetric long period of notice of termination/notice of quitting that often ends up being at least a month if not 60+ days. In the US, every state is at-will, you can leave at any time and be dismissed at any time (within the bounds of certain legal protections, paranoid risk of violating which has driven larger companies to an insane PIP-style process of nudging someone out the door over a period of months). I think US companies and employees both should continue leaning in to that more as an advantage.

Jach 5y ago

It happens in programming jobs here but in different ways. The general style I think you're thinking of seems more likely to me for startups to try experimenting with (and more informally), but we also have a different style where you work for a general contracting agency who has you work for another company for a fixed term. Some of those after the fixed term can transform into that other company hiring you directly (and giving you higher pay not cut by the contracting company, benefits, etc. that you lacked as a contractor), or if not the contracting company helping you find a new company to contract for. The final style I can think of is already institutionalized at big companies for entry level roles in the form of hiring interns almost done with college. They work for you for a few months of the summer (often at equivalent 'hourly' salaries as a senior role) and if you like them, you offer them a full time position (at a lower entry level salary) starting next summer after they graduate. It can be a smart way to get talent that doesn't yet know it's great, or will become great, without paying a premium. The biggest problem when hiring people with experience though, and why the probation style is pretty rare in the direct form I think you're thinking of, is that it's going to filter out the best people -- just like many other too onerous hiring practices filter them. They're just not going to put up with it when they have much better options. For Europe to the extent such a practice works at all is probably related to how universal it is for employees and employers to have a symmetric long period of notice of termination/notice of quitting that often ends up being at least a month if not 60+ days. In the US, every state is at-will, you can leave at any time and be dismissed at any time (within the bounds of certain legal protections, paranoid risk of violating which has driven larger companies to an insane PIP-style process of nudging someone out the door over a period of months). I think US companies and employees both should continue leaning in to that more as an advantage.