3 ms·

The employer has more _risk_.

by hatware 4y ago

pmoriarty 4y ago
How so?
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  Think about how much a bad hire costs a company. Not only does 6-figures of cash get burned, but you're back at square one needing to find a new hire, not to mention your project now being behind schedule because you expected work from someone, and now the existing team has to go through another interviewing spree.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    And if you used an agent, you might be on the hook for several months' salary too.
  - projectazorian 4y ago
    Any hiring decision is a major risk for both parties. In many cases it's the employee who takes on the most risk, unless it's a very senior role or an early stage startup where every hire is business critical. The employee may have left a job where they were relatively secure - maybe they even relocated for the role. Now they're back on the job market and their employability has taken a major hit. Not to mention that being fired is often a very traumatic experience with all the health consequences that entails. Seems a lot more serious than a project being pushed back a couple months. (btw, "bad" according to which criteria? a lot of the time when I hear this phrase thrown around it's a smokescreen for unrealistic expectations or an exclusionary team culture)
  - b20000 4y ago
    think about the 6 figures it costs you when recruiters damage your brand due to them alienating qualified candidates with stupid coding interviews and treating them like idiots who will work hard for shitty compensation.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    6 figures is not spent if you hire someone who doesn't work out. If that were true companies would give out huge raises to keep employees. They don't.. they prefer that people leave and new people get hired by them. No one wants a bad hire because it taints their brand at the org. Having someone else recommend someone means someone else takes the blame. Referrals get hired quickly.
    - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
      If you pay someone $200K/year and keep them on for 6 months before letting them go, that's $100K spent.

The employer has more _risk_.

pmoriarty 4y ago

How so?

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
Think about how much a bad hire costs a company. Not only does 6-figures of cash get burned, but you're back at square one needing to find a new hire, not to mention your project now being behind schedule because you expected work from someone, and now the existing team has to go through another interviewing spree.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  And if you used an agent, you might be on the hook for several months' salary too.
- projectazorian 4y ago
  Any hiring decision is a major risk for both parties. In many cases it's the employee who takes on the most risk, unless it's a very senior role or an early stage startup where every hire is business critical. The employee may have left a job where they were relatively secure - maybe they even relocated for the role. Now they're back on the job market and their employability has taken a major hit. Not to mention that being fired is often a very traumatic experience with all the health consequences that entails. Seems a lot more serious than a project being pushed back a couple months. (btw, "bad" according to which criteria? a lot of the time when I hear this phrase thrown around it's a smokescreen for unrealistic expectations or an exclusionary team culture)
- b20000 4y ago
  think about the 6 figures it costs you when recruiters damage your brand due to them alienating qualified candidates with stupid coding interviews and treating them like idiots who will work hard for shitty compensation.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  6 figures is not spent if you hire someone who doesn't work out. If that were true companies would give out huge raises to keep employees. They don't.. they prefer that people leave and new people get hired by them. No one wants a bad hire because it taints their brand at the org. Having someone else recommend someone means someone else takes the blame. Referrals get hired quickly.
  - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    If you pay someone $200K/year and keep them on for 6 months before letting them go, that's $100K spent.