[cyberax]

"Trial periods" are actually a thing in many countries with strong employment laws, where firing people requires a cause. It helps to reduce the risk of hiring somebody, and so they are advantageous for both employers and employees.

In the US? Yeah, they don't make much sense.

[TheDong]

In a lot of countries, trial-periods are less of an interview and more of a "Firing you in the future will be incredibly hard, so we have a 3 month trial period where if you show up on time every day, you'll get converted to full time, and if don't show up, do zero work, and are an ass, maybe we won't convert you to fulltime".

In the US, when someone says "trial period", it usually means "extended interview" where there's a high chance of failure, while in other countries, the trial-period is a formality to make sure you're a functioning adult, but with no real chance of failure if you're not grossly incompetent.

[marcus_holmes]

For government/large corp roles, it's possibly a formality.

But for smaller orgs, the probation period where either side can terminate at will is very, very real. I have both fired someone during their probation, and walked away from a role during probation. It's not a formality, and just turning up on time and moistening a chair is not enough to pass it in many cases.

[hnlmorg]

A probationary period (which is what we have in Europe) is very different to an extended paid interview as described by the trial period.

With a probationary period, your default state is “employed”. Typically what happens even if you fail the probationary period, is that probationary period is extended before any new hire dismissed.

Plus even in the UK, it’s actually not that hard to fire someone outside of their probationary period but inside of 2 years.

It’s also worth noting that generally employers still hold all the power even with the stronger employment laws. For example, unless you’ve got a very clear case for unfair dismissal, the cost of fighting a dispute isn’t generally worth the trouble - and in many cases the (ex)employee isnt even financially secure enough to hire a solicitor to begin with. So it’s easier to part ways and focus that energy on the opportunity.

[turkey99]

I’d argue in the UK probation periods are effectively 2 years long.

[southernplaces7]

As I mentioned in a reply above, I don't see the logic of them in the U.S. Fully onboarded or not, a company in most contexts outside of union-protected work can fire you at any time for nearly any reason or none at all. So why bother with a paid trial?

[cool_dude85]

I work in a white collar union position in the US with a rather long probationary period, but nobody here would describe it as a "trial period." The expectation is very much that you will pass through the trial period barring something very extreme. It's more to weed out the totally, entirely unqualified than a "trial" that you might or might not pass.

[jessriedel]

I don't think that reflects the practical reality. For both legal and social reasons, firing someone is way harder than not hiring them after a trial period. Bad hires are costly.

[givemeethekeys]

They can hire you as a contractor for a couple of weeks to avoid that mess, then give you a full-time offer / contract if things go well.

[FireBeyond]

What mess, exactly? Like the parent said, contractor or FTE, you're almost certainly at the mercy of "the company may terminate the agreement with immediate effect for any or no disclosed reason".

More accurate: "They can hire you a contractor for 3-12 months and not have to pay you benefits for that period."

[givemeethekeys]

I'm not an expert, but there are some financial ramifications associated with laying off too many people in proportion the the company size, at least in California, since people who have been laid off can claim unemployment benefits.

There's also the risk of wrongful termination lawsuits if you're hiring someone full-time only to immediately lay them off for not impressing you enough.

It is much simpler to hire someone as a contractor. You may not even have to go through HR to do it.

[chiefalchemist]

Yes, either way the relationship can be severed, by either party.

But if you're a FTE you will likely be able to get unemployment. As a contractor there is zero chance that can happen.

On the other hand, as a contractor you get to write off expenses, and if the client is following the law as a contractor you get a far more flexible schedule.

Each has + and -.

[FireBeyond]

> On the other hand, as a contractor you get to write off expenses

There's probably not a lot of contractor-specific expenses you'd see in a C2H role. Hell, the two I did (admittedly a while back) gave me a company laptop. WFH tax concessions?

You're also not likely to get a C2H situation that looks like this:

FTE salary: $150,000, but for the duration of the "ramp" contract is paying you $150/hr.

You might have a small bump for tax discrepancies, but the last time I played that game you'd most likely find your contract rate to be $80-90/hr, i.e basically the same. They're not going to pay you effectively double for three months to hire you on at the base rate.

> if the client is following the law as a contractor you get a far more flexible schedule

I'd love to see the C2H that says "Hey, since you are a contractor, you can work your own hours and have your own availability". Or it might be said as lip service, but that's not how you're going to get the "hire" part.

[chiefalchemist]

You still in theory need your own laptop. You might have other office exexpenses. If you WFH then your internet. Cell phone.

As a contractor, you're a business. There's overhead to run that biz. Those are business expenses.