3 ms·

I disagree. > the employer can easily weather In a large business maybe, but more often than not in a large business you're a number and you're gonna pass pro

I disagree. > the employer can easily weather In a large business maybe, but more often than not in a large business you're a number and you're gonna pass probation regardless. In a smaller business, the cost of recruitment process can be huge, it's not just 1 hour interview and you're done as an employer. It's hours of reviewing CVs, contacting people, arranging times, conducting interviews, weening people out, disruption to your primary job role, etc etc. That's a huge cost and drain on the business. If the business decides they don't want you during that probation period, you must have done something pretty bad, because that's a huge cost sink to that business. In a medium business alot of that goes away, sure, but they pay for in recruitment fees, interviews (less) offers, onboarding, etc. My point is, its very difficult for a business to weather this stuff. If a business lets you go during a probation period, it must really not be a good fit. I've been involved in some recruitment process over my 18 year career, never the primary person doing it, so only reviewed CVs and been in the interviews. Only once did we let someone go during probation, because he was quite toxic and spent all his time complaining rather than working. At the same time I've only seen 1 person quit during probation after 1 week. He was hired to do Design and HTML/CSS, but decided after 1 week he didn't like doing HTML/CSS and decided to leave. Which made my boss absolutely furious because of the wasted time that the typical 1 week notice was thrown out the window and he was asked to leave the building right away.

lelanthran 4y ago
> In a smaller business, the cost of recruitment process can be huge, it's not just 1 hour interview and you're done as an employer. It's hours of reviewing CVs, contacting people, arranging times, conducting interviews, weening people out, disruption to your primary job role, etc etc. That's a huge cost and drain on the business. Not as life-changing to the business as it is to the employee. > At the same time I've only seen 1 person quit during probation after 1 week. He was hired to do Design and HTML/CSS, but decided after 1 week he didn't like doing HTML/CSS and decided to leave. Which made my boss absolutely furious because of the wasted time that the typical 1 week notice was thrown out the window and he was asked to leave the building right away. And yet, that did not cause the business to pay the current employees less, or downstaff, did it? After all, if the financial implication did not involve cutting costs down just to survive, then it is not comparable to an individual, who literally has to spend less money and cut out existing costs just to survive.
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  > And yet, that did not cause the business to pay the current employees less, or downstaff, did it? > After all, if the financial implication did not involve cutting costs down just to survive, then it is not comparable to an individual, who literally has to spend less money and cut out existing costs just to survive. I’m not sure you understand. It still costs the company. It was the employees decision to leave because he decided he didn’t want to do the work he was hired to do. Should the company say “oh no problem we will just pay you because we have some money in the bank right at this very moment in time”?
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > I’m not sure you understand. It still costs the company. I'm not contending that, I'm saying that for the employee it is a matter of survival. For the company, it's not. > Should the company say “oh no problem we will just pay you because we have some money in the bank right at this very moment in time”? Where in " the employer can easily weather (or not even notice) the ending of that employment, while the employee undergoes a life-changing event. " did you read that? I said that it's not an equal risk; the individual stands to lose a lot more by losing their job than the company stands to lose by losing the individual.
    - philliphaydon 4y ago
      But the risk to the individual doesn’t matter. Yeah it’s difficult for different people. But ultimately it’s better for both parties to end it sooner rather than later.
      - lelanthran 4y ago
        > But the risk to the individual doesn’t matter. To the company, the risk to the individual doesn't matter. To the individual, the risk to the company is irrelevant. IOW, when someone leaves their stable employment and starts with a new company, the company's risk (lose some money) is almost insignificant compared to the individual's risk (starve). Hence I said that the risk isn't equally shared between the parties. In comparison to literally dying, the company's risk looks almost negligible.

lelanthran 4y ago

> In a smaller business, the cost of recruitment process can be huge, it's not just 1 hour interview and you're done as an employer. It's hours of reviewing CVs, contacting people, arranging times, conducting interviews, weening people out, disruption to your primary job role, etc etc. That's a huge cost and drain on the business. Not as life-changing to the business as it is to the employee. > At the same time I've only seen 1 person quit during probation after 1 week. He was hired to do Design and HTML/CSS, but decided after 1 week he didn't like doing HTML/CSS and decided to leave. Which made my boss absolutely furious because of the wasted time that the typical 1 week notice was thrown out the window and he was asked to leave the building right away. And yet, that did not cause the business to pay the current employees less, or downstaff, did it? After all, if the financial implication did not involve cutting costs down just to survive, then it is not comparable to an individual, who literally has to spend less money and cut out existing costs just to survive.

philliphaydon 4y ago
> And yet, that did not cause the business to pay the current employees less, or downstaff, did it? > After all, if the financial implication did not involve cutting costs down just to survive, then it is not comparable to an individual, who literally has to spend less money and cut out existing costs just to survive. I’m not sure you understand. It still costs the company. It was the employees decision to leave because he decided he didn’t want to do the work he was hired to do. Should the company say “oh no problem we will just pay you because we have some money in the bank right at this very moment in time”?
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > I’m not sure you understand. It still costs the company. I'm not contending that, I'm saying that for the employee it is a matter of survival. For the company, it's not. > Should the company say “oh no problem we will just pay you because we have some money in the bank right at this very moment in time”? Where in " the employer can easily weather (or not even notice) the ending of that employment, while the employee undergoes a life-changing event. " did you read that? I said that it's not an equal risk; the individual stands to lose a lot more by losing their job than the company stands to lose by losing the individual.
  - philliphaydon 4y ago
    But the risk to the individual doesn’t matter. Yeah it’s difficult for different people. But ultimately it’s better for both parties to end it sooner rather than later.
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > But the risk to the individual doesn’t matter. To the company, the risk to the individual doesn't matter. To the individual, the risk to the company is irrelevant. IOW, when someone leaves their stable employment and starts with a new company, the company's risk (lose some money) is almost insignificant compared to the individual's risk (starve). Hence I said that the risk isn't equally shared between the parties. In comparison to literally dying, the company's risk looks almost negligible.