3 ms·
This is contract to hire which is perfectly valid but not something most companies will agree to. I think it’s due to conflicting goals. The department hiring
by rapind 4y ago
This is contract to hire which is perfectly valid but not something most companies will agree to.
I think it’s due to conflicting goals. The department hiring wants to lock in the employee so they can cross it off their todo list, and fix the cost. They don’t want to train a consultant who’s still lining up other work. Once the consultant has been trained he or she is in a better negotiating position since they haven’t agreed to a salary yet.
Corporate wants to require a probationary period so they can wiggle out of it with least expense in the unlikely event they have to.
Ideally after a probationary period the employee can renegotiate their compensation, but this is seen as bad faith and holding the company for ransom and creates bad feelings.
- rapind 4y agoIt’s funny because I literally just a just ran into a friend who owns a restaurant after I posted. He complained about being short staffed and not being able to handle the cooking work while being sociable with customers (he’s one of those guys who sits down with his customers). I asked him what happened to his last chef. He said he trained her up and she quit, so now he’s screwed. I asked him if he could have kept her if he paid her more. He looked at me like I was crazy and said she was already being paid too much. I responded, Oh, so you couldn’t afford to pay her more? He said it wasn’t about that, it was just crazy that he should have to pay her more. I kept my opinions to myself and just said “I hear ya. That’s rough man.” He said “Loyalty is dead”… I didn’t make up a word of this.