4 ms·

I don't quite get it. Normally, both the applicant and the employer take a risk when the latter decides to hire. You could argue that an employer takes the bigg

I don't quite get it. Normally, both the applicant and the employer take a risk when the latter decides to hire. You could argue that an employer takes the biggest risk. In this system al the burden and risk is shifted solely on the applicant. So what does he or she gets in return? It's not clear from the article. I would expect that in order to attract applicants they must - either be desperate, - or have a salary offer in sight more than 2.5 times the market's average.

donw 12y ago
Provided that the "solid consulting rate" isn't pure bullshit, then I don't see the problem here. In a traditional hiring process, you'd be hired, not work out in the first month, and then get fired. No unemployment or ongoing insurance for the employee, and a lot of paperwork and the possibility of a wrongful termination lawsuit for the employer. By starting things off on a contract, both the employer and the employee have a chance to evaluate one another. It's really exactly the same as the traditional hire-fire process, but with less paperwork, and clear expectations on both sides.
- FLUX-YOU 12y ago
  >By starting things off on a contract, both the employer and the employee have a chance to evaluate one another. It's really exactly the same as the traditional hire-fire process, but with less paperwork, and clear expectations on both sides. That's got to be compensation for New York not being a right-to-work state
- kourt 12y ago
  Automattic, the creator of WordPress, the blog and website tool. Still, every hire, without exception, goes through a two- to six-week contract period, and is paid the standard rate of $25 an hour. $25/hour: seriously?
  - jurassic 12y ago
    That seems ridiculously low for any software job. I've known design interns making almost double that in SF.
- exceptione 12y ago
  I don't have a very sharp view of the practices in the US. In The Netherlands it is possible that the employer and the applicant agree to a proof period of maximally 2 months in which both sides are able to terminate the contract. It is also possible here to offer the applicant a temporary contract which can be renewed two times (for the same contract period). Both parties needs to keep to this contract, they can only end it on pre-negotiated terms. After two renewals of the contract the employer needs to let you go or your contract changes in a normal, non-temporary one. I think these measures are more appropriate to deal with uncertainties about possible misfits? It makes sure both parties make a commitment for trying to make it fit as I see it. I read something completely opposite here: «Candidates get about three weeks of work to complete in a week — and not much guidance. “It’s ‘Here’s your desk and some people you should know,’ ” Mr. Rusenko said.» I wonder if they could not improve their interviewing skills.
- nerfhammer 12y ago
  > “We tell people to take a vacation, and we pay them,” he said. That way, if it does not work out, “you have one less week of vacation, but the next time you take a vacation it can be a nicer one.” If I had 7 weeks vacation, maybe. Much less that you can basically only do a trial like this once a year, but spending half of your two weeks vacation a year might be worth a lot more than money.
notJim 12y ago
Yeah this seems really anti-worker to me. Sadly, the direction things seem to be predominantly going lately.
FLUX-YOU 12y ago
They make you do 3 weeks of work in the span of 1 week. Getting the work done is a hard criteria, so even if you only end up getting 2.5 weeks of work done, the company is still WAY ahead, and you've just spent your vacation time and the company spent a tiny amount of money. It would be one thing if they were testing you with work they've already done (build a module from scratch similar to what we did), but I have a feeling they're taking mostly completed stuff from the failures and using it in production. This is pretty much zero risk to the employer because at worse, they're just spending cash as if they were hiring a (more expensive) contractor I think they're interested in actually hiring people, but it's a nice side effect that they get some low-cost work done (the article doesn't mention the pay, but I doubt they are compensating you what you make at your current position + intangibles for taking your vacation to work there). Another metric to look at would be whether this company is actually investing in their employees (paid training, conferences, new productivity tools, etc.). The trial period, supposed workload, and the hard criteria that you MUST complete the work is a huge red flag. I guess it's a bit of cash in pocket for the unemployed though.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Slightly offtopic: If you can abuse the working populace with this (due to economic conditions), its time for a basic income.
  - Afforess 12y ago
    Those two ideas are not even closely related.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      Perhaps I made a leap, as its a long discussion that could be had. Would an employer be able to squeeze 3 weeks of work out of a potential candidate on their vacation unless the employee had no other choice? That to me is not how a labor market should function in a first-world country. edit: /u/dismal2 said it much better
    - dismal2 12y ago
arenaninja 12y ago
I also don't get it. Don't most companies already apply a 3-month period where if you don't cut it you're fired? Every company I've worked for has, and only one failed to fire people (because no one wanted to work there and they'd rather have bad workers than no workers)
- tobinfricke 12y ago
  Is a probationary period really meaningful in the context of at-will employment?
  - kyllo 12y ago
    Yeah, oftentimes you don't start getting benefits until it's over.
- rgrieselhuber 12y ago
  You'd be surprised at the amount of drama that occurs, regardless.
nostrademons 12y ago
A bad fit between company and employee is a risk for both of them. If you institute a system that reduces the risk of such an outcome, it helps both of them, in proportion to how much they were risking in the first place. If it helps the employer more than the employee, it's because the employer was risking more in the first place. (Something I'm not sure of - I've turned down cofounder positions with startups because after working with them for a week I realized I didn't really like the other founders, and then ended up doing far better than the startup did.) The main problems I see with it are: 1.) How to recruit from companies with restrictive IP covenants or moonlighting clauses. There's no way Google would've let me do something like this when I was working for them, for example, and most companies would like the option of hiring ex-Googlers if they're interested. 2.) It eliminates the ability to check out many options in parallel, which is essential for negotiating a fair wage as an employee. A company can "test drive" many possible employees at once; a person can generally only work for one effectively.

donw 12y ago

Provided that the "solid consulting rate" isn't pure bullshit, then I don't see the problem here. In a traditional hiring process, you'd be hired, not work out in the first month, and then get fired. No unemployment or ongoing insurance for the employee, and a lot of paperwork and the possibility of a wrongful termination lawsuit for the employer. By starting things off on a contract, both the employer and the employee have a chance to evaluate one another. It's really exactly the same as the traditional hire-fire process, but with less paperwork, and clear expectations on both sides.

FLUX-YOU 12y ago
>By starting things off on a contract, both the employer and the employee have a chance to evaluate one another. It's really exactly the same as the traditional hire-fire process, but with less paperwork, and clear expectations on both sides. That's got to be compensation for New York not being a right-to-work state
kourt 12y ago
Automattic, the creator of WordPress, the blog and website tool. Still, every hire, without exception, goes through a two- to six-week contract period, and is paid the standard rate of $25 an hour. $25/hour: seriously?
- jurassic 12y ago
  That seems ridiculously low for any software job. I've known design interns making almost double that in SF.
exceptione 12y ago
I don't have a very sharp view of the practices in the US. In The Netherlands it is possible that the employer and the applicant agree to a proof period of maximally 2 months in which both sides are able to terminate the contract. It is also possible here to offer the applicant a temporary contract which can be renewed two times (for the same contract period). Both parties needs to keep to this contract, they can only end it on pre-negotiated terms. After two renewals of the contract the employer needs to let you go or your contract changes in a normal, non-temporary one. I think these measures are more appropriate to deal with uncertainties about possible misfits? It makes sure both parties make a commitment for trying to make it fit as I see it. I read something completely opposite here: «Candidates get about three weeks of work to complete in a week — and not much guidance. “It’s ‘Here’s your desk and some people you should know,’ ” Mr. Rusenko said.» I wonder if they could not improve their interviewing skills.
nerfhammer 12y ago
> “We tell people to take a vacation, and we pay them,” he said. That way, if it does not work out, “you have one less week of vacation, but the next time you take a vacation it can be a nicer one.” If I had 7 weeks vacation, maybe. Much less that you can basically only do a trial like this once a year, but spending half of your two weeks vacation a year might be worth a lot more than money.

notJim 12y ago

Yeah this seems really anti-worker to me. Sadly, the direction things seem to be predominantly going lately.

FLUX-YOU 12y ago

They make you do 3 weeks of work in the span of 1 week. Getting the work done is a hard criteria, so even if you only end up getting 2.5 weeks of work done, the company is still WAY ahead, and you've just spent your vacation time and the company spent a tiny amount of money. It would be one thing if they were testing you with work they've already done (build a module from scratch similar to what we did), but I have a feeling they're taking mostly completed stuff from the failures and using it in production. This is pretty much zero risk to the employer because at worse, they're just spending cash as if they were hiring a (more expensive) contractor I think they're interested in actually hiring people, but it's a nice side effect that they get some low-cost work done (the article doesn't mention the pay, but I doubt they are compensating you what you make at your current position + intangibles for taking your vacation to work there). Another metric to look at would be whether this company is actually investing in their employees (paid training, conferences, new productivity tools, etc.). The trial period, supposed workload, and the hard criteria that you MUST complete the work is a huge red flag. I guess it's a bit of cash in pocket for the unemployed though.

toomuchtodo 12y ago
Slightly offtopic: If you can abuse the working populace with this (due to economic conditions), its time for a basic income.
- Afforess 12y ago
  Those two ideas are not even closely related.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Perhaps I made a leap, as its a long discussion that could be had. Would an employer be able to squeeze 3 weeks of work out of a potential candidate on their vacation unless the employee had no other choice? That to me is not how a labor market should function in a first-world country. edit: /u/dismal2 said it much better
  - dismal2 12y ago

arenaninja 12y ago

I also don't get it. Don't most companies already apply a 3-month period where if you don't cut it you're fired? Every company I've worked for has, and only one failed to fire people (because no one wanted to work there and they'd rather have bad workers than no workers)

tobinfricke 12y ago
Is a probationary period really meaningful in the context of at-will employment?
- kyllo 12y ago
  Yeah, oftentimes you don't start getting benefits until it's over.
rgrieselhuber 12y ago
You'd be surprised at the amount of drama that occurs, regardless.

nostrademons 12y ago

A bad fit between company and employee is a risk for both of them. If you institute a system that reduces the risk of such an outcome, it helps both of them, in proportion to how much they were risking in the first place. If it helps the employer more than the employee, it's because the employer was risking more in the first place. (Something I'm not sure of - I've turned down cofounder positions with startups because after working with them for a week I realized I didn't really like the other founders, and then ended up doing far better than the startup did.) The main problems I see with it are: 1.) How to recruit from companies with restrictive IP covenants or moonlighting clauses. There's no way Google would've let me do something like this when I was working for them, for example, and most companies would like the option of hiring ex-Googlers if they're interested. 2.) It eliminates the ability to check out many options in parallel, which is essential for negotiating a fair wage as an employee. A company can "test drive" many possible employees at once; a person can generally only work for one effectively.