3 ms·

Every recruiting firm that does consulting has some language in their agreement (with both the consultant and the client) about a cost (fee) for hiring the cons

by fecak 13y ago

Every recruiting firm that does consulting has some language in their agreement (with both the consultant and the client) about a cost (fee) for hiring the consultant directly. Try before you buy has been around forever. If they are moving these consultants around to different companies to find a match, that is somewhat unique. Just placing someone into a contract-to-hire role until the not hire/hire decision is made is not new. I like contract-to-hire overall, but one problem is that you get lifetime contractors who have no intention of ever converting to perm roles, and they just stay as long as they can. Companies are more inclined to invest in and train a contract-to-hire employee over a pure contract employee. The brain drain can be a problem. Another issue is contract-to-hire employees usually are paid a premium, and get accustomed to the money, making them less apt to convert. This is particularly troublesome for those that get their benefits through their spouse/partner, where the extra money seems substantial because they aren't paying for benefits or COBRA out of it. Probationary periods are rather useless in any at will employment state (in the US, not sure about international law). Why put "We can fire you in 90 days if you don't perform" in an employment contract when you can simply fire someone on day 2 if you really wanted to? It seems like a decent motivational tool perhaps, but in markets like software it is just another reason for candidates to potentially turn down work, where the alternative (no probationary period and no expectation of even 90 days of work) is better for both parties.

michaelochurch 13y ago
The probationary period is to reduce risk of lawsuits because at-will employment is actually very complicated when it comes to subjective evaluation (i.e. all white collar work) and no one wants to cut a severance check for someone who is cut in the first 90 days. "At-will" means that companies have the right to execute strategic layoffs, and also to set performance standards whereever they wish, as long as they're uniformly enforced across that job description. (Both of these, I'd argue, are reasonable.) It doesn't allow companies to vary their performance standards for different individuals, or to fire "for any reason". For example, if you work for a 5,000-person company and you're fired for performance after failing on one project and being denied transfer, and you can prove that someone else was allowed transfer under the same circumstances, you can possibly win a discrimination or harassment case (especially because any negative communication about you by management that impedes your chance at transfer can be construed as harassment; this is why the common practice of making performance reviews Enron-style-- that is, part of the transfer packet-- exposes a company to severe legal risk). If you apply to a 5-person company and get fired in Month 3 because your boss (probably the CEO) isn't feeling it, you probably don't have legal recourse, because as owner and manager of the business, he has the right to select personnel. If it's a 5,000-person company, and you weren't give a few chances to prove yourself on multiple projects, you can raise accusations of personal bias. (That's why companies implement those horrible 18-month policies against internal transfer-- it's to create the impression of a uniform performance standard-- however, those only have legal weight if enforced uniformly, which they never are.) Even if you don't win, you can bring a lot of HR records into fresh air (which a company doesn't want) as they try to prove that you failed according to a set of rules that is enforced uniformly. Companies would rather pay severance than have the courts getting into their HR records. The probation period is generally more "at-will" than regular employment. For most companies, probation means a couple of things. First, it means that a no-show constitutes voluntary resignation and therefore can't require the company to pay unemployment. (This isn't an issue at our level, but most people are not as ambitious and diligent as we are, and no-shows happen.) Second, it blocks the "employee should have been allowed transfer before termination" argument because the going assumption is that no one transfers in a probation period. Third, it often means no vacation is accrued, which is relevant when people are terminated early on (because they usually haven't used it). Fourth, and perhaps most relevant, it means that one should not expect severance if terminated in that time.
- yuhong 13y ago
  Personally, I think these anti-discrimination laws are probably fundamentally flawed for a while now, at least nowadays.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > "At-will" means that companies have the right to execute strategic layoffs, and also to set performance standards whereever they wish, as long as they're uniformly enforced across that job description. (Both of these, I'd argue, are reasonable.) It doesn't allow companies to vary their performance standards for different individuals, or to fire "for any reason". This is somewhat misleading. It definitaly allows them to vary their perfomance standards for different individuals (just not to discriminate on a set of specific prohibited bases) and to fire for any reason except for set of specifically prohibited illegal reasons. Having consistent standards (both in theory and in documentable enforcement practice) for everyone isn't a requirement, it just helps you prove that the firing was not for a prohibited reason, and that the standards you were applying to that particular person were not discriminatory on one of the specifically-impermissible bases. Many of the things that people perceive as "legal requirements" aren't actually legal requirements, they are things that are common practices designed to demonstrate that the actual legal requirements are being met.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    What you say is technically true, but those procedures also exist because it's better, from the company's perspective, to have such demonstration in place than to have to prove, in court, that it did nothing wrong. Companies don't want HR data of any kind (even if it will prove the firm's case) seeing fresh air. For one example that can be played (by employee) to a win, the most common case of a good person being fired seems to be one in which he's seeking transfer to another team, and the manager decides to punish the "disloyal" report, often with negative reviews and "performance improvement plans" that block transfer outright. In that particular case, it's arguably retaliation (over a legitimate use of internal mobility procedures) and harassment (negative communication interfering with job performance) for the manager to be doing so. Technically, if a manager interferes with a report's ability to transfer, that is harassment, and bad performance reviews qualify in companies that use Enron-style reviews (i.e. reviews that are part of the transfer packet). That's why Google has secret calibration scores: it's a CYA move. Managers can give positive verbal feedback and annotate it with a smear that the employee never sees. This makes it less likely that a report's lack of mobility will result in a lawsuit. That's why if you ever see a PIP, you should never sign it, and in fact leave the room immediately. "I have to go to the bathroom". Then you start your internal mobility search immediately. If you do it properly (this includes that you were never there to see the PIP) then the pursuit of transfer happened before the PIP, which hints at a retaliatory context. This move doesn't work under a probationary period because anyone who seeks transfer when on probation is (reasonable man standard) deemed unwilling to follow workplace policies-- or, more informally but to the point, a flake.

by fecak 13y ago

michaelochurch 13y ago

The probationary period is to reduce risk of lawsuits because at-will employment is actually very complicated when it comes to subjective evaluation (i.e. all white collar work) and no one wants to cut a severance check for someone who is cut in the first 90 days. "At-will" means that companies have the right to execute strategic layoffs, and also to set performance standards whereever they wish, as long as they're uniformly enforced across that job description. (Both of these, I'd argue, are reasonable.) It doesn't allow companies to vary their performance standards for different individuals, or to fire "for any reason". For example, if you work for a 5,000-person company and you're fired for performance after failing on one project and being denied transfer, and you can prove that someone else was allowed transfer under the same circumstances, you can possibly win a discrimination or harassment case (especially because any negative communication about you by management that impedes your chance at transfer can be construed as harassment; this is why the common practice of making performance reviews Enron-style-- that is, part of the transfer packet-- exposes a company to severe legal risk). If you apply to a 5-person company and get fired in Month 3 because your boss (probably the CEO) isn't feeling it, you probably don't have legal recourse, because as owner and manager of the business, he has the right to select personnel. If it's a 5,000-person company, and you weren't give a few chances to prove yourself on multiple projects, you can raise accusations of personal bias. (That's why companies implement those horrible 18-month policies against internal transfer-- it's to create the impression of a uniform performance standard-- however, those only have legal weight if enforced uniformly, which they never are.) Even if you don't win, you can bring a lot of HR records into fresh air (which a company doesn't want) as they try to prove that you failed according to a set of rules that is enforced uniformly. Companies would rather pay severance than have the courts getting into their HR records. The probation period is generally more "at-will" than regular employment. For most companies, probation means a couple of things. First, it means that a no-show constitutes voluntary resignation and therefore can't require the company to pay unemployment. (This isn't an issue at our level, but most people are not as ambitious and diligent as we are, and no-shows happen.) Second, it blocks the "employee should have been allowed transfer before termination" argument because the going assumption is that no one transfers in a probation period. Third, it often means no vacation is accrued, which is relevant when people are terminated early on (because they usually haven't used it). Fourth, and perhaps most relevant, it means that one should not expect severance if terminated in that time.

yuhong 13y ago
Personally, I think these anti-discrimination laws are probably fundamentally flawed for a while now, at least nowadays.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> "At-will" means that companies have the right to execute strategic layoffs, and also to set performance standards whereever they wish, as long as they're uniformly enforced across that job description. (Both of these, I'd argue, are reasonable.) It doesn't allow companies to vary their performance standards for different individuals, or to fire "for any reason". This is somewhat misleading. It definitaly allows them to vary their perfomance standards for different individuals (just not to discriminate on a set of specific prohibited bases) and to fire for any reason except for set of specifically prohibited illegal reasons. Having consistent standards (both in theory and in documentable enforcement practice) for everyone isn't a requirement, it just helps you prove that the firing was not for a prohibited reason, and that the standards you were applying to that particular person were not discriminatory on one of the specifically-impermissible bases. Many of the things that people perceive as "legal requirements" aren't actually legal requirements, they are things that are common practices designed to demonstrate that the actual legal requirements are being met.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  What you say is technically true, but those procedures also exist because it's better, from the company's perspective, to have such demonstration in place than to have to prove, in court, that it did nothing wrong. Companies don't want HR data of any kind (even if it will prove the firm's case) seeing fresh air. For one example that can be played (by employee) to a win, the most common case of a good person being fired seems to be one in which he's seeking transfer to another team, and the manager decides to punish the "disloyal" report, often with negative reviews and "performance improvement plans" that block transfer outright. In that particular case, it's arguably retaliation (over a legitimate use of internal mobility procedures) and harassment (negative communication interfering with job performance) for the manager to be doing so. Technically, if a manager interferes with a report's ability to transfer, that is harassment, and bad performance reviews qualify in companies that use Enron-style reviews (i.e. reviews that are part of the transfer packet). That's why Google has secret calibration scores: it's a CYA move. Managers can give positive verbal feedback and annotate it with a smear that the employee never sees. This makes it less likely that a report's lack of mobility will result in a lawsuit. That's why if you ever see a PIP, you should never sign it, and in fact leave the room immediately. "I have to go to the bathroom". Then you start your internal mobility search immediately. If you do it properly (this includes that you were never there to see the PIP) then the pursuit of transfer happened before the PIP, which hints at a retaliatory context. This move doesn't work under a probationary period because anyone who seeks transfer when on probation is (reasonable man standard) deemed unwilling to follow workplace policies-- or, more informally but to the point, a flake.