3 ms·

This is absolutely true for Google (or companies of similar scale), where it is 1. hard and slow to just fire someone 2. The production of a good (average?) vs

This is absolutely true for Google (or companies of similar scale), where it is 1. hard and slow to just fire someone 2. The production of a good (average?) vs. great programmer doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things (due to massive scale, and robust quality control systems). A process where you optimize for avoiding false positives makes sense. Most companies are not Google though, and if they are <50 employee - it's absolutely the opposite. 1. It's fast to fire people 2. Missing out on a great programmer for an average one makes a huge difference! So, it follows that they should optimize for avoiding false negatives (rejecting a great candidate), without worrying too much if they got a bad apple snuck in.

sethammons 5y ago
We did a hire fast and fire fast trial at work and it was not pleasant. The person comes on the team and we spend a lot of time onboarding, people form bonds, and then frustrations start to mount and the person is let go and now the whole team morale is lower. Lower team morale is not something to take lightly.
wreath 5y ago
> This is absolutely true for Google (or companies of similar scale), where it is 1. hard and slow to just fire someone 2. The production of a good (average?) vs. great programmer doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things (due to massive scale, and robust quality control systems). This is true also for places like Germany (and Europe in general afaik) where the cost of firing someone past their probation (6 months) is very very costly, especially for small companies. IMO, at-will employment should be something the employer and the employee should negotiate and not imposed by the state or the employer. Unfortunately, it's usually the employer who has the upper hand.
- hiptobecubic 5y ago
  The fact that non-at-will employment is always the result of legal burden and not negotiation between employer and candidate should make it clear that that cannot work. As an employer it is extremely valuable to be able to arbitrarily fire someone, so since there are always candidates that are job hunting with purpose and not just casually on the side of their current job, it will be very hard to find one to agree to it. "I'll work for you but only if you can't fire me" is something only the most desperate companies would accept unless they are forced to.
  - wreath 5y ago
    > "I'll work for you but only if you can't fire me" is something only the most desperate companies would accept unless they are forced to. Yeah this would be a red flag on the candidate immediately. What I meant was that the negotiation should be on the notice period not on being unfirable. I see it's a huge burden on the company to not be able to fire someone and what ends up happening when you have a bad apple is other team members start leaving.

sethammons 5y ago

We did a hire fast and fire fast trial at work and it was not pleasant. The person comes on the team and we spend a lot of time onboarding, people form bonds, and then frustrations start to mount and the person is let go and now the whole team morale is lower. Lower team morale is not something to take lightly.

wreath 5y ago

> This is absolutely true for Google (or companies of similar scale), where it is 1. hard and slow to just fire someone 2. The production of a good (average?) vs. great programmer doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things (due to massive scale, and robust quality control systems). This is true also for places like Germany (and Europe in general afaik) where the cost of firing someone past their probation (6 months) is very very costly, especially for small companies. IMO, at-will employment should be something the employer and the employee should negotiate and not imposed by the state or the employer. Unfortunately, it's usually the employer who has the upper hand.

hiptobecubic 5y ago
The fact that non-at-will employment is always the result of legal burden and not negotiation between employer and candidate should make it clear that that cannot work. As an employer it is extremely valuable to be able to arbitrarily fire someone, so since there are always candidates that are job hunting with purpose and not just casually on the side of their current job, it will be very hard to find one to agree to it. "I'll work for you but only if you can't fire me" is something only the most desperate companies would accept unless they are forced to.
- wreath 5y ago
  > "I'll work for you but only if you can't fire me" is something only the most desperate companies would accept unless they are forced to. Yeah this would be a red flag on the candidate immediately. What I meant was that the negotiation should be on the notice period not on being unfirable. I see it's a huge burden on the company to not be able to fire someone and what ends up happening when you have a bad apple is other team members start leaving.