Hacker News Reader

I'm an American living in Berlin, and I think the problem here would be more of a cultural one than a legal one. Germans just have an expectation that once hired they will be given every chance to succeed, to the point that firings seem to come across as a shock or an implication of major wrong-doing.

"Hire fast, fire fast" is already ingrained in American startups, so I think the policy outlined in this article would be easier to adopt in the US. Americans in general view jobs as more transient than Europeans do.

I think you meant “hire slow, fire fast.” Never heard fast for both.

That's what the article says that is being discussed. Probably you didn't read it.

(1) the article put forward their approach as a novelty; OP claimed he’d never heard such a thing (as being ingrained in American culture already.) These two statements do not contradict one another.

(2) claiming people didn’t read the linked article is actually one of the few things that’s explicitly called out in the HN guidelines as not being kosher. Please don’t.

In Ireland a recruiter can impose a one year probationary period, but in practice most opt for six months with a two week notice period.

As for Helpful, I wouldn't work for a company that uses those sorts of recruitment practices. What they are doing feels very sketchy to me.

It massively balances the recruitment process in their favour. They are putting all the risk on to the candidates as they have much more to lose if they fail probation. I know from experience short duration jobs on CVs/Resumes raises alarm bells with recruiters. Plus, it could affect benefit entitlements too if they fail probation as that could be seen as a firing.

What if they have one position and decided to hire all five candidates on probation and make them compete against each other? That would be so stressful.

They could also misuse this process to quickly boost staff numbers for a short period instead of hiring contract staff.

It feels like the author is trying to use spin to make what is an unfair recruitment process sound like a good thing.

Hi there, these are some good points.

This process doesn't put more risk on the employee, because at any job and with any interview process, one would hope that both the company and the candidate are still in the honeymoon period within the first 90 days. So even if I passed the 5 hour interview, I may not pass the first 90 days.

The biggest difference, is that I'm transparent about the fact that interviews are not a good predicator (I guess I could waste everyone's time by spending 5 hours interviewing?)

If you hire five people but can only keep one for whatever reason because they are all good, then you have a problem of riches. This is a solvable problem.

Worst case scenario is that you do quality vetting and then place these hires into other organizations that need them and (maybe) don't hire as efficiently. If you're a big org, HR people should know HR people and make that happen. If you're at a small org, just use contacts of the founder/C-suite folks -- good people don't grow on trees and will be welcome additions to other companies/teams.

The more likely result is that a not small percentage of the people actually interview way better than they perform. It's ok to let these people find a new place to work -- they have effectively engaged in false advertising.

> Not sure how that would fly outside of the US. In France we have probationary periods but I have never heard of a company hiring multiple people for a full time role (CDI) and then laying off the ones that aren’t the best fit after a couple of months. That sounds to me like a way to get in a bit of trouble - legally, socially, with unions - in the employment context here.

No problem whatsoever in doing it in post-Communist EU countries. In fact it's the daily bread in low cost and outsourcing centers over there. It's a very fertile land for the most exploitive cost-cutting corporate practices.

>> "[...] They’re then on a 90 day probationary period to see if they work out…"

> Not sure how that would fly outside of the US.

Why not? The purpose of probationary period is precisely that: to see if things work out. If they don't, the probationary period ends and the employer simply doesn't extend the employment.

> [...] I have never heard of a company hiring multiple people for a full time role (CDI) and then laying off the ones that aren’t the best fit after a couple of months.

From the short fragment you cited I got the impression that the goal is not to choose a single candidate from the bunch, but to keep potentially all of them. Though I may be wrong, as I haven't read TFA.

>employer simply doesn't extend the employment

Simple! Simple for the employer but a major issue for the employee.

Americans value corporations over people. In Europe it's the other way around.

Depends. If you're unemployed, a two-month stint at this kind of company is certainly better for you than an interview rejection. You get two months' salary, hopefully learn something, and if you think that it would look worse than unemployment on your resume you can always omit it (maybe bring it up in person where you can explain the context).

If, however, you're already employed, joining this company looks like an awful proposition. Assuming they don't lie to their recruits about their likelihood to pass the probationary period, they're gonna have a really hard time recruiting anybody who already has a stable and not-horrible job. This is gonna screw the corporation pretty hard as soon as they need to hire senior people rather than startup cannon fodder.

>> employer simply doesn't extend the employment

> Simple! Simple for the employer but a major issue for the employee.

Well, yes, but from what I see around me, it's a standard practice to first hire for the probationary period of three months, so an employee has to take this into the account. And unless the employee is highly incompetent or the employer is outright hostile, the probationary period usually ends with regular employment.

It's good that the Europe is generally favourable towards the employees, but employers also need a little slack, don't you think? We can't only put obstacles in their way.