3 ms·

> The problem is supporting the 'try before you buy' model would basically require most companies to be happy with someone taking a month off to go try working

> The problem is supporting the 'try before you buy' model would basically require most companies to be happy with someone taking a month off to go try working somewhere else for a bit and then come back if nothing happens. I wouldn't think that this is how you would hire a known performer. I can still see the problem, but I can also see how it wouldn't be a problem if it were a more common and more standardized process. And if the applicant were being paid contractor's wages (higher) during the tryout period, not salary-level wages.

makeitdouble 2y ago
The whole issue is to identify a "known performer" in the first place. Otherwise, that practice being more common means people can leave their job for weeks here and there no questions asked ("I'm going to work for our main competitor for 3 weeks" won't fly if it needs approval), and come back without impact or penalties on their performance. That would be ideal, but we're so so far from that. Even getting people to properly take their parental leave is still a fight.
frumper 2y ago
I’m sure some people would accept being paid to try out without the company having any commitment to hiring, but those are probably not the people you’d actually want to hire. If a company can’t commit to hiring then why would a confident professional bother with the company? A probationary period seems like a reasonable compromise where the company commits to the expense of onboarding while still having an escape if it goes poorly.
- em-bee 2y ago
  those are probably not the people you’d actually want to hire why not?
  - frumper 2y ago
    That'd probably spawn a class of workers that are happy making a living off of trying out at places. Aside from that, why would someone that has a job quit their job for a company that won't commit to hiring them. The worker can already quit the new job if they don't like it early on. This only benefits companies.

makeitdouble 2y ago

The whole issue is to identify a "known performer" in the first place. Otherwise, that practice being more common means people can leave their job for weeks here and there no questions asked ("I'm going to work for our main competitor for 3 weeks" won't fly if it needs approval), and come back without impact or penalties on their performance. That would be ideal, but we're so so far from that. Even getting people to properly take their parental leave is still a fight.

frumper 2y ago

I’m sure some people would accept being paid to try out without the company having any commitment to hiring, but those are probably not the people you’d actually want to hire. If a company can’t commit to hiring then why would a confident professional bother with the company? A probationary period seems like a reasonable compromise where the company commits to the expense of onboarding while still having an escape if it goes poorly.

em-bee 2y ago
those are probably not the people you’d actually want to hire why not?
- frumper 2y ago
  That'd probably spawn a class of workers that are happy making a living off of trying out at places. Aside from that, why would someone that has a job quit their job for a company that won't commit to hiring them. The worker can already quit the new job if they don't like it early on. This only benefits companies.