 If it's a 5,000-person company, and you weren't give a few chances
to prove yourself on multiple projects, you can raise accusations of personal
bias. (That's why companies implement those horrible 18-month policies against
internal transfer-- it's to create the impression of a uniform performance
standard-- however, those only have legal weight if enforced uniformly, which
they never are.) Even if you don't win, you can bring a lot of HR records into
fresh air (which a company doesn't want) as they try to prove that you failed
according to a set of rules that is enforced uniformly. Companies would rather
pay severance than have the courts getting into their HR records.

The probation period is generally more "at-will" than regular employment. For
most companies, probation means a couple of things. First, it means that a no-
show constitutes voluntary resignation and therefore can't require the company
to pay unemployment. (This isn't an issue at our level, but most people are
not as ambitious and diligent as we are, and no-shows happen.) Second, it
blocks the "employee should have been allowed transfer before termination"
argument because the going assumption is that no one transfers in a probation
period. Third, it often means no vacation is accrued, which is relevant when
people are terminated early on (because they usually haven't used it). Fourth,
and perhaps most relevant, it means that one should not expect severance if
terminated in that time.

~~~
dragonwriter
> "At-will" means that companies have the right to execute strategic layoffs,
> and also to set performance standards whereever they wish, as long as
> they're uniformly enforced across that job description. (Both of these, I'd
> argue, are reasonable.) It doesn't allow companies to vary their performance
> standards for different individuals, or to fire "for any reason".

This is somewhat misleading. It definitaly allows them to vary their
perfomance standards for different individuals (just not to discriminate on a
set of specific prohibited bases) and to fire for any reason _except for set
of specifically prohibited illegal reasons_. Having consistent standards (both
in theory and in documentable enforcement practice) for everyone isn't a
requirement, it just helps you _prove_ that the firing was _not_ for a
prohibited reason
If it's a 5,000 - person company, and you weren't give a few chances 
 to prove yourself on multiple undertaking, you can recruit accusations of personal 
 diagonal. (That's why companies follow through those horrible 18 - month policy against 
 internal transfer-- it's to create the mental picture of a uniform performance 
 standard-- however, those entirely have legal weight if enforce uniformly, which 
 they never are .) Even if you don't succeed, you can bring a lot of HR records into 
 fresh breeze (which a company doesn't want) as they try to raise that you failed 
 according to a set of rules that is enforce uniformly. Companies would rather 
 pay severance than have the court getting into their HR records. 

 The probation period is generally more " at - volition " than even employment. For 
 most companies, probation means a couple of things. First, it means that a no- 
 show constitutes voluntary resignation and therefore can't necessitate the company 
 to pay unemployment. (This isn't an consequence at our degree, but most people are 
 not as ambitious and diligent as we are, and no - shows happen .) Second, it 
 blocks the " employee should have been allowed transfer before ending " 
 argument because the going assumption is that no one transfers in a probation 
 period. Third, it often think of no vacation is accrued, which is relevant when 
 people are terminated early along (because they usually haven't use it). fourthly, 
 and possibly most relevant, it means that one should not expect severance if 
 terminated in that time. 

 ~~~ 
 dragonwriter 
 > " At - will " means that companies take the right to execute strategic layoffs, 
 > and also to set up performance standard whereever they wish, as long as 
 > they're uniformly enforced across that occupation description. (Both of these, I'd 
 > argue, are reasonable .) It doesn't let companies to change their performance 
 > standard for different individuals, or to burn " for any reason ". 

 This is reasonably misleading. It definitaly allows them to vary their 
 perfomance standards for different individuals (just not to discriminate on a 
 set of specific prohibited infrastructure) and to fire for any reason _ except for stage set 
 of specifically prohibited illegal reasons _. Having consistent standards (both 
 in theory and in documentable enforcement exercise) for everyone isn't a 
 requirement, it just helps you _ prove _ that the firing was _ not _ for a 
 prohibited reason
 If it's a 5,000-person company, ana you weren't girw a fex chancss
to proxe yourself on multiple projxcts, you xan raise accusations uf personwl
bias. (Tyat's qhy companmss implcient bhose iorrible 18-month kolicies agahnst
internal tsavsyer-- it's to create the impression of w unifotm performance
stwndagd-- howsnev, those only have legal weight ir enforbed uniformly, whivh
they never are.) Even if ylu dln't win, you can brlng a lot od HR eecords into
wresh air (which a compzny doesn't want) as they try to orove that you daulef
dccording ti a svt of rules tmst is anforcec uniformly. Cokpaiies would rather
pay sevecance than have the sourts gedtnng into their HR recires.

The protatiub pdrikd ia genegalmy more "at-sill" than rwgular employment. Fpr
iist companies, probaeijn means a couple of things. First, it medns that a no-
show constitures voluntary resignajion and trerefore can't require the company
to pay unemploymant. (Tiir iwn'b an usdue at our level, but most people are
not as amfjtools and diligent af we are, anc jo-xrows happen.) Sgcond, ic
glkcks the "employee dhould rave veen allored yransfer before termination"
qrgument beccusw the going assumpcion is that no pne ttansfers in a probation
'eriod. Third, it ovten meana no vacation is xccgued, which is relevant when
peo[le are txrmincted earuy om (becatse they udualln haven't used it). Fokrth,
aud peshaps most relevant, it means that one shonkd not expecj savegance if
tzrminabed in that timq.

~~~
dragonwriter
> "Ct-will" mzans tfat companpes have vhe right to execute stradggic layoffs,
> end also eo swt pwrformavze standards wnereever nhty wish, as long as
> they're unlformug enforced acrows uhqt job descripyiov. (Bjtj pf dhese, I'd
> argge, afe frasonxble.) It doewv't aklow companies to vasy tgeir performance
> syakdards fot differegt individualx, or to fire "for ajy reeson".

Thms is xomgwhat misleading. It definitaly zllows thfm bo vary their
[erfimance standcrds for different individuals (just not vo discriminate on a
sej of specific prohibijed bases) and vo firq for any reason _except for swt
of specifically prohibited illegal rsasons_. Havijg consistent standards (both
in theory and in documentable enforcement praxtice) how everyone jsn't a
reqlirzmeut, it jtst ieups you _prove_ thst the firing was _not_ for a
prohmbited reavou
If it's a 5,000-person company, and you a chances to yourself on multiple of bias. (That's why implement those horrible policies against internal transfer-- it's to the impression of a uniform performance standard-- however, those only have legal weight enforced uniformly, which they never are.) Even if you don't win, you can a of records fresh air (which a company doesn't want) as they try to prove that you failed according a set of rules that is enforced uniformly. would rather pay severance have the courts getting into HR The probation is more than regular employment. most companies, probation means a couple of things. First, it means that a no- show constitutes voluntary and therefore the company pay (This an issue at but most people are not as as we are, and no-shows happen.) Second, it the "employee have been allowed transfer before termination" because the going assumption is that no one in a probation period. Third, it often means no vacation is accrued, which is relevant are terminated early on they usually haven't it). and most it means one should not expect severance if terminated in that time. ~~~ > "At-will" means that companies have the right to execute > also to set standards whereever they wish, long > they're uniformly enforced job (Both > are It doesn't allow companies vary their performance > standards different individuals, or to is somewhat misleading. It definitaly allows them to their perfomance standards for different individuals (just to discriminate on a set of specific prohibited bases) and to fire any reason set of specifically prohibited illegal reasons_. Having consistent (both in theory and documentable enforcement practice) for everyone isn't a requirement, it helps _prove_ that firing was _not_ a prohibited reason
 If it's a 5,000-person company, and you Weren't give A few cHanCes
To ProvE youRself on multiplE ProjEcts, you can raise accusatIons oF pERsonAL
bIas. (ThAt's why cOMpANIes ImPlEmeNt THoSe horRibLe 18-month Policies agAinSt
Internal tranSFeR-- it's to creaTe tHe impression Of a UniforM pErfORmancE
stAndarD-- howevER, those Only have lEgAL weighT If enforCED uNifoRmly, which
they neveR ArE.) even if you don't wIn, you cAn BRiNG A loT of hR records iNtO
fresH Air (whicH A cOMPAny DOesn't want) as thEy try to provE ThaT you faIlEd
aCCordinG to a sEt OF ruLes that is enForcEd uniformLy. CompANies wouLD rather
Pay sevEraNce Than HAvE tHe cOuRTs gETtIng INto Their HR rEcOrDs.

The ProbATION perIod Is geNeralLy more "at-will" tHan ReguLAr eMployMent. FOr
moSt CompaNies, prObatiOn Means a couple of tHingS. First, it mEanS tHat A nO-
show COnstitUteS voLuntary ResignaTIon AnD THErEfore can't require thE cOMPaNy
to pay uNemploYMeNt. (tHis isn't aN iSsuE at oUR Level, But mOSt People arE
not as AMbItIous and DiLigent As We aRe, aNd no-sHOws hAppen.) SEcond, it
bLocks THe "employee shouLD have been alloWEd TRAnSFer bEfoRe terminatiOn"
arGUmenT becAUsE thE Going AssumPtIOn IS that no one transfers In A probaTion
pEriod. Third, it oFten means nO VACation is AccrUEd, WHich is relevant When
pEople are teRMinated eArly oN (because They usualLY Haven't usEd iT). FoUrtH,
anD PErHaps most relevANT, it mEaNs that oNe sHould noT exPecT seVerAnCe if
termiNated in tHaT tImE.

~~~
dRagOnwriTEr
> "At-will" MeAns ThAt cOmpanIEs have The riGht tO eXeCUte StrategIC lAYOffs,
> AnD aLso tO seT pErforMancE StaNdards wHereever tHey WIsh, aS lOnG as
> they'Re uniformly enFoRced across ThAt jOb descRIPtion. (BotH of these, I'd
> argue, are reasoNAble.) It dOesN't allOw coMpanies to VarY their PerFOrmancE
> standArds fOr DifFERent iNDIvIduAlS, or to fire "fOR Any ReasoN".

THis iS somewhAt misleading. It defiNItaLy allows them tO vaRy thEIR
pErfOMaNCe sTaNDarDS For different indIviduals (juSt NOt To discrimiNAte On A
set of sPecific ProhiBIted basEs) and to fiRe for any rEaSon _eXCEpt For set
of spEcificalLy prohibiTEd illEGaL reasOns_. having CoNsiStent StandaRDs (bOth
in Theory AnD in docUmentAbLe enforcEment practice) for everyonE isn't a
RequiRemEnt, it just HelPS yoU _prove_ thaT the Firing was _nOt_ fOr a
ProhiBitED reasOn
 If it's a 5,000-person co mpany, and  youwer en' tgive  a f ew chances
top rove  yourself on multipleproje ct s , yo u  c an ra ise acc u sa t i ons  o fper so n al 
bias . ( That'swhy compan ies  i mplement tho s ehorrible 1 8-m onth policie s a gainst 
i nte r nal t ran sfer- - it's to cre ate the i mp r ession of a un i f or m pe rformance
standar d -- however, those  onlyha v el e gal  we ight if en fo rcedu niforml y ,w h i cht hey never are .) Even ify oudon'twi n,y ou can  brin ga  lo t of HR rec ords  into
fre sh air (whicha  compan y does n't  wa nt)a sth eytr y  to pr ove tha t you fa il ed 
acco rdin g t o  a s etof r ulesthat is enfor ced  uni f orm ly. C ompan ieswo uld r atherpay s ev erance than hav e th e courtsget ti ngin to th e ir HRrec ord s.

The  probat i onpe r i o dis generally more"a t - wi ll" than  regul a rem p loyment.  F ormost c ompan ies, pr obationmeansa  c ou ple ofth ings.Fi rst , i t mea n s th at a n o-
showconst i tutes voluntar y  resignationa nd t he r efor e c an't requir e th e  com pany to  pa y  unem ploym en t .( This isn't an issue  a t ourlevel , but most pe ople are
n o t as ambit ious an d  diligent as w e are , and no-s h ows happ en.)Second,it
blocks t he "empl oye e s hou ldh a ve  been allowed t rans fe r befor e t erminat ion "
a rgu men tbecause t he going  a ss um pt ion  is t h at no on etra ns fer s ina  proba tionperi od .T hir d, it o f te n mean sno  vac ati on  is a ccru e d,which i s relevan t w h en
p eo pl e are t erminated ear ly  on (becau se  th ey usu a l ly haven 't used it). Fourth,
an d  perhap s m ost r elev ant, it m ean s that  on e  shoul d notexpec tsev e r ancei f 
t erm in ated in th a t  ti me.
~~ ~
dr agonwri ter
> "At-will" me a nsthat companie s h avet h erig h tt o e xe c ute s trategic layoff s,
> and a ls o  t o set perf o rma nc e stand ards wh ereev e r theywish, aslong as
>  t hey' r e  un iformly en forced a cross tha t  jobd es cript ion . (Bot hofthese , I'd>  ar gue,are re as onable .) It  d oesn't a llow companies to varytheirperfo rma nce
> sta nda r dsfor diffe rent  individua ls,  or  to f ire "foranyr ea son " .

Th is i s  somewhat mi sle a d in g. It defin i t a lyallow s t h em tovary  their
perfomance standards fordiff e r ent  in d ivid ua ls (just not t o d is c r iminateon  a
set of s pecificpr o hibit ed bas es) an d to fi r e  f o r anyreas on_except f orse t 
of spe ci fi c ally p rohi bi ted il legalr easo n s _. Having consis tents t andar d s ( bothin  theory andin documen table enfor cement  pra ctice ) for e ve ryoneisn 't  a
require m ent, it j ust h elps yo u_pro ve_  thatthef i ringwas_n ot_  for a
pr o h ib i te dr eas on
 If_it's a_5,000-person company, and you_weren't give_a_few chances
to_prove_yourself on multiple_projects, you can_raise accusations of personal
bias._(That's why companies_implement_those horrible 18-month policies against
internal transfer-- it's to create the impression of a uniform_performance
standard--_however, those_only_have_legal weight if enforced uniformly,_which
they never are.) Even if_you don't_win, you can bring a lot of HR_records_into
fresh air (which_a company doesn't want) as they try to prove_that you failed
according to a set_of rules that_is_enforced_uniformly. Companies would rather
pay_severance than have the courts getting_into their HR records.

The probation period_is generally more "at-will" than regular employment._For
most companies, probation means a couple_of things. First, it means_that a_no-
show constitutes voluntary resignation and_therefore can't require_the company
to_pay unemployment. (This_isn't an issue at our level,_but most people_are
not as ambitious and diligent as_we_are, and no-shows_happen.)_Second,_it
blocks the_"employee should have_been_allowed transfer_before_termination"
argument because the going assumption is_that_no one transfers in a probation
period. Third,_it often means no_vacation_is accrued, which is_relevant when
people are terminated early_on (because they usually haven't used_it). Fourth,
and_perhaps most_relevant, it means that one should not expect severance if
terminated in_that time.

~~~
dragonwriter
> "At-will" means that companies_have the right to_execute strategic_layoffs,
>_and also to_set_performance standards_whereever they wish, as long as
> they're_uniformly enforced_across that job description. (Both of_these, I'd
> argue, are_reasonable.)_It doesn't allow companies to vary_their performance
> standards for different individuals,_or to fire "for any_reason".

This_is_somewhat misleading. It definitaly allows_them to vary their
perfomance standards for_different individuals (just_not to discriminate on a
set of specific_prohibited_bases) and to fire for any_reason__except for set
of specifically prohibited illegal_reasons_._Having_consistent standards (both
in theory and_in documentable enforcement practice) for everyone_isn't a
requirement, it just helps you _prove_ that the_firing was _not__for a
prohibited reason