[Nursie]

In the UK 3 months is unusual, I've only ever heard about it for management positions. In tech roles 1 month is standard AFAICT.

Personally I'd never work on a three month term, I consider it abusive, it completely kills your ability to find a new role before handing in your notice. You'd have to be really confident of your skills and of the market before you made that leap.

And you can be fired for all sorts of reasons after 2 years, including poor performance, but there has to be a reason and you have to be given notice and a chance or three to fix the problem.

[Dayshine]

I've never had an employer unwilling to wait 3 months for me to start.

> And you can be fired for all sorts of reasons after 2 years, including poor performance, but there has to be a reason and you have to be given notice and a chance or three to fix the problem.

If you're working a tech role you have the money to get legal advice and help avoid illegal firing. They can't just make up poor performance.

[Nursie]

> I've never had an employer unwilling to wait 3 months for me to start.

I've had employers unwilling to wait two weeks, and that was when I was the only person on the market with the specific skills they needed (in the UK). Hell, in later years when I've been contracting the entire job can be done and over in in three months.

Fundamentally if I need someone to fill a role, and if you can't do it for three months but someone else can do it in one, or even better immediately, I'm taking them.

Are the roles you've been in all in very large corporates?

> They can't just make up poor performance.

Of course, but they can fire you for reasons like poor performance if they are well grounded in that evaluation. Clearly it shouldn't be a surprise as your management should have been talking to you and helping you get up to scratch, but it does exist as a way to get rid of someone who is genuinely underperforming. Your post above made it sound like redundancy was the only way.