[raving-richard]

If I were ever in charge of hiring for many types of position (whether programming, or writing, or such), I think I would do something similar. The advertisement will say "looking for full time X (must complete initial contract period of Y weeks)" or similar. The best way to see if you like someone's work, is to see it. So, hire them for up to three months (telling them that this is what is happening, and why, and being completely upfront about it), and if it works out, hire them full time. Then, why not hire multiple people? If you have a program that needs work done, then hire six people to work on those parts for a couple of weeks. See who's work you like, then hire them full time.

This requires a change in both thinking, and how programming is done. You want to have nice chunks of work that can be completed by new people in a short period of time. But, I'm sure it's possible.

(Where I'm from, the way to get a full time job in many fields is: get casual work, get short term contracts, get longer term contracts, someone else dies or retires, you get offered a full time job. This is partly due to too many people looking for too few jobs. This is not an ideal situation, but does mean that by the time people are hired for the full time job, the people hiring them know them already, and the quality of their work.)

[bad_user]

No, that's not similar. There's a huge difference there ...

Good consultants / freelancers have higher hourly rates than normal employees, to cover their expenses and the periods of inactivity. Plus really good ones are much more expensive simply because they can deliver value that can't be delivered by average employees, so they are expensive because there's demand for their skill-set.

Your solution for example would not get me hired by you. Because I hate probation periods. Because getting hired for only X weeks is a risk for me that has to be worth it. So either you're a really sexy company for which I'm dying to work for, or you must pay me enough for those 3 weeks to be worth it.

And furthermore, the relationship between a consultant hired for a limited amount of time and an employee on probation is very different, going beyond just price. A good consultant gets hired based on (initial) trust in that consultant's skill-set, wheres a probation period signals exactly the opposite.

[raving-richard]

Of course, for that initial period, paying extra would be the way to go. The difference between what I suggest, and an ordinary probation period is thus: with an ordinary probation period, still only one person is hired, but not only do the others not get paid, the one person is still not guaranteed a job at the end of the process. My way's more upfront.

[JackMorgan]

Very few people would leave a job for a "chance" at another. So you'll limit yourself to only people currently without work, which is a much smaller pool and likely to be filled with a disproportionate number of recently fired people.

[joncrocks]

As well as 'not so recently' fired people.

[anon4]

That's pretty much how it works here. Labour contracts include a provision that you can be fired for any reason at any point during the first three months with the company (they still have to pay you for all the days you're with them, of course). Conversely, they also include the clause that you can leave at any point during those three months without advance notice. After that, both parties must give a full month's advance notice to the other before terminating the relationship.