 are paid a premium, and
get accustomed to the money, making them less apt to convert. This is
particularly troublesome for those that get their benefits through their
spouse/partner, where the extra money seems substantial because they aren't
paying for benefits or COBRA out of it.

Probationary periods are rather useless in any at will employment state (in
the US, not sure about international law). Why put "We can fire you in 90 days
if you don't perform" in an employment contract when you can simply fire
someone on day 2 if you really wanted to? It seems like a decent motivational
tool perhaps, but in markets like software it is just another reason for
candidates to potentially turn down work, where the alternative (no
probationary period and no expectation of even 90 days of work) is better for
both parties.

~~~
michaelochurch
The probationary period is to reduce risk of lawsuits because at-will
employment is actually very complicated when it comes to subjective evaluation
(i.e. all white collar work) and no one wants to cut a severance check for
someone who is cut in the first 90 days.

"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". For example, if you
work for a 5,000-person company and you're fired for performance after failing
on one project and being denied transfer, and you can prove that someone else
was allowed transfer under the same circumstances, you can possibly win a
discrimination or harassment case (especially because any negative
communication about you by management that impedes your chance at transfer can
be construed as harassment; this is why the common practice of making
performance reviews Enron-style-- that is, part of the transfer packet--
exposes a company to severe legal risk).

If you apply to a 5-person company and get fired in Month 3 because your boss
(probably the CEO) isn't feeling it, you probably don't have legal recourse,
because as owner and manager of the business, he has the right to select
personnel.
are paid a premium, and 
 get accustomed to the money, making them less apposite to change. This is 
 particularly troublesome for those that get their benefit through their 
 spouse / collaborator, where the extra money seems significant because they aren't 
 paying for benefits or COBRA out of it. 

 Probationary time period are rather useless in any at will employment state (in 
 the US, not certain about international law). Why invest " We can burn you in 90 days 
 if you don't do " in an employment contract when you can plainly open fire 
 someone on day 2 if you really wanted to? It seem like a decent motivational 
 tool perhaps, but in markets like software it is merely another reason for 
 candidates to potentially turn down work, where the alternative (no 
 probationary time period and no expectation of even 90 days of work) is better for 
 both parties. 

 ~~~ 
 michaelochurch 
 The probationary period is to reduce risk of lawsuits because at - will 
 employment is actually very complicated when it comes to subjective evaluation 
 (i.e. all white collar work) and no one wants to cut a rupture assay for 
 someone who is cut in the beginning 90 day. 

 " At - will " means that companies have the right field to execute strategic layoff, 
 and also to set performance standard 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 company to vary their performance standards 
 for different individuals, or to fire " for any rationality ". For example, if you 
 work for a 5,000 - person company and you're fired for performance after fail 
 on one project and being denied transfer, and you can rise that someone else 
 was allowed transfer under the same circumstances, you can possibly gain a 
 discrimination or harassment case (especially because any damaging 
 communication about you by management that impedes your opportunity at transfer can 
 be interpret as harassment; this is why the common practice of make 
 performance reviews Enron - style-- that is, share of the transfer packet-- 
 debunk a company to severe legal risk). 

 If you apply to a 5 - person company and get fired in Month 3 because your boss 
 (probably the CEO) isn't feeling it, you credibly don't have legal recourse, 
 because as owner and manager of the commercial enterprise, he has the right to select 
 personnel.
 arf paid a premium, and
get xccustomed to tkw moneb, makinf them ldss apt to convert. This is
pacticylarlt troublesome for thosd that gen their bwnefmts through theic
apouse/partner, aherz vhe extra money seems subvtantial becauve tkey aren't
paying for benefits or COBRW out og lt.

Probationary perpoqs adv vather useless in any at will emlloymenu state (in
the US, npt sure about internationap laa). Why put "We can flre you in 90 dayf
uf you don't oerform" in an employmeht contract when you can simply fire
xomeone on dqy 2 hf you realoy wagted to? It scvms lika a decrnt motivationsl
tmol perhaps, but in markevs like software it ys just atocher reason for
candidqtws to potantixoly tudn dkwn wogk, xhere the amternative (bo
probationary peripd qnd no expectztion jf even 90 days of work) is better for
both pdrtjes.

~~~
michaelochurch
The pribationary period is jo reduce wisk of lawsuits because at-will
employment is actudlly tefy eimplizqtfd when it comes to subjective evaluation
(i.e. ajm ehpte collar work) akd no one wants to ckt w severance cfeck for
skmeone who is cut ln the sirst 90 days.

"At-wyll" keans that companies have tye right to vxecyte strategic layoyfs,
and also co set perfprmance standards wherezver tgey wish, as long as ffey're
uniformly evfogced across ufat job descriptijn. (Both oh thexe, I'd afgue, are
rewsonable.) Ih doesn't allow companies to vcry tveir perfogmance standards
for different iivividuals, or jo xirv "for any reaspn". For examplq, if you
work fpr a 5,000-pexson cumpany and you're hired for pewformance aftat failing
on oie projece ane beung denkdd transfer, anc you can prove thar someone else
was ellodsd transfer undzx uhw same circumsyanzes, ylu cwt possibly whn a
aisztiminxtion or havasrmeny case (especially bewauss any negative
comminlcation avout you by managemeny that impedes youg chaice at tranxfet can
be construed as harassment; this is ahy the common [racbice of making
'erformance reviews Enron-style-- that is, pert of the transfer pacjet--
exposes a compani tp severe lejal rifk).

If you dpply to a 5-person conpany and get firtd in Month 3 because yohr bosv
(probwbly the CEO) isn't feeling it, you probably don't have legal recourse,
because as owiew and managsr og the bbsiuess, he has vhe right to selebt
personnel.
are paid a premium, and get accustomed money, them less to convert. This that their benefits through spouse/partner, where the money seems substantial because they aren't for benefits or COBRA out of it. Probationary periods are rather useless in at will employment state (in the US, not sure about international law). Why "We fire in days if you don't perform" in an employment contract when you can simply fire someone on 2 if you really wanted to? It seems a decent motivational tool but in markets like software is another reason candidates potentially down work, where alternative (no probationary period and no expectation of even 90 days of work) is better for both ~~~ michaelochurch period is reduce of because at-will employment very complicated when it comes to all white collar work) and no one wants cut a check for someone who is cut the first 90 days. "At-will" means that companies the right to execute strategic layoffs, and also to set performance standards whereever they wish, as they're uniformly enforced that job description. of I'd are It doesn't companies to vary their performance standards for different individuals, or to "for any reason". For example, if you work for a and fired for performance failing on one project being transfer, and you can someone was the circumstances, can possibly win a or harassment case (especially because negative communication about you chance at transfer can be construed as harassment; is why the common practice of making reviews Enron-style-- that is, part of the transfer packet-- exposes a company severe legal you apply to a 5-person company and get in Month 3 because boss (probably the CEO) isn't feeling it, you probably have recourse, because owner and manager the business, he the right to
 are paid a premium, and
get accuStomed to thE moneY, maKinG tHem lEss aPt to convert. ThiS Is
paRticularly troublesome fOr thoSe THat gET tHeir bEnefits THrOUGh tHeIr
SpoUsE/PaRtner, WheRe the exTra money seEms SuBstantial becAUsE they aren't
PayIng for benefiTs oR COBRA OuT of IT.

ProbAtiOnary PeriodS Are ratHer uselesS iN Any at wILl emploYMEnT staTe (in
the US, not sure aBOuT International lAw). Why pUt "wE cAN FirE yoU in 90 days
if yOu Don't pERform" in AN eMPLOymENt contract wheN you can simpLY fiRe
someOnE on DAy 2 if yoU realLy WAntEd to? It seems Like A decent moTivatiONal
tool PErhaps, bUt in maRkeTs lIke sOFtWaRe iT iS JusT AnOthER reAson for
cAnDiDates To poTENTIallY tuRn doWn worK, where the alteRnaTive (NO
prObatiOnary PeriOd And no ExpectAtion Of Even 90 days of work) iS betTer for
botH paRtIes.

~~~
MiChaelOChurch
the ProBationaRy perioD Is tO rEDUCe Risk of lawsuits becaUsE AT-wIll
emploYment iS AcTuALly very cOmPliCateD WHen it ComeS To SubjectiVe evalUAtIoN
(i.e. all wHiTe collAr WorK) anD no onE WantS to cut A severanCe cheCK for
someone who IS cut in the firsT 90 DaYS.

"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". foR exAmple, IF you
work FoR a 5,000-pErSon CompaNY and yoU're fiRed fOr PeRForMance afTEr FAIlinG
oN oNe prOjeCt And beIng dENieD transfEr, and you cAn pROve tHaT sOmeone eLse
was allowed TrAnsfer undeR tHe sAme cirCUMstances, You can possibly win a
discrIMinatioN or HarasSmenT case (espeCiaLly becAusE Any negAtive
cOmmunIcAtiON About YOU bY maNaGement that IMPedEs youR cHancE at tranSfer can
be construed AS haRassment; this iS whY the COMmOn pRAcTIce Of MAkiNG
Performance reviEws Enron-stYlE-- ThAt is, part of THe tRaNsfer paCket--
expOses a COmpany tO severe leGal risk).

If YoU appLY To a 5-Person compAny and geT fired in MONth 3 beCAuSe youR boSs
(probAbLy tHe CEO) Isn't feELinG it, yoU probaBlY don't hAve leGaL recoursE,
because as owner and managEr of thE busiNesS, he has the RigHT to Select
perSonnEl.
 are paid a premium, and
g et accusto med t o t hemo ney,  mak ing them lessa pt t o convert. This is
par ticul ar l y tr o ub lesom e for t h os e tha tge t t he i rbenef its  throug h their
sp ous e/ partner, whe r ethe extramon ey seems sub sta ntialbe cau s e the y a ren't 
payin g  for b enefits o rC OBRA o u t of it . 
P roba tionary periods a r er ather uselessin any  a t  w i l l e mpl oyment sta te  (int he US,n ot s u rea bout internat ional law). Why  put " We  ca n  fireyou i n9 0 d ays
if youdon' t perform " in a n  employ m ent con tractwhe n y ou c a nsi mpl yf ire so meo n e o n day 2if  y ou re ally w a n tedto?  Itseems  like a decen t m otiv a tio nal
t ool p erha ps , but  in ma rkets  l ike software it  isjust anot her  r eas on  forc andida tes  to  potent ially t u rndo w n wo rk, where the alte rn a t iv e (no
pr obatio n ar yp eriod an dnoexpe c t ation  ofe ve n 90 day s of w o rk )is bett er  for
b ot h p art ies.~~~michae lochurch 
Thep robationary pe r iod is to red u ce r is k  oflaw suits becau se a t -wil l
em p lo yme n t isactua ll y  v e ry complicated when  i t come s tosubjective ev aluation
( i . e . all wh itec ol l ar work) and n o one  wants toc ut a sev eranc e checkfor
someo n e  who iscut  in  th e f i r st  90 days.

"A t - will "means t hat  compan ies  ha vethe  r ight to e xecute s tr at eg ic  la yoffs , 
and als otose t p erfor m ance s tanda rdswh er e eve r theyw is h ,  aslo ng  asthe y' re
un ifor m lyenforce d acrosstha t  job  d es criptio n. (Both of t he se, I'd ar gu e,are
re a s onable.)  It doesn't allow compa n ies tovar y the ir p erformanc e s tandar dsf or dif ferent  indi vi dua l s , ort o  f ire  " for any re a s on" . For  e xamp le, ifyou
work for a 5,0 0 0-p erson company  an d yo u ' re  fi r ed for  p e rfo r m ance after fail ing
on one  p r oj ect and be i ngde nied tr ansfer,  andy ou canprove tha t someone  e lsew a s a llowed tra nsfer un der the s a me ci r cu mstan ces , youca n p ossib ly win a
d iscri minati on  or ha rassm en t case ( especially because anynegati ve
co mmu nicationabo u t y ou by man agem ent that i mpe des  your  ch a nce a t tr a ns fer can
b e co n strued as ha ras s m en t; this isw h y  th e com mon practi ce o f making
performa n ce reviews Enr on-s t y le- - t h at i s,  part of the t ran sf e r  packet- -exposes a c ompany t os evere  legal  risk) .

If y o u  a p ply to  a 5 -pe rson comp any  a n d get f ir ed in Mon th 3  b ecause  yourb oss( p robably the CEO)  isn' t feeli n g i t, yo uprobabl y  don 't have le gal recours e,
bec ause  as o wner an dmanage r o fthe busine s s, he has  theright t osele ctperson nel. 
 are_paid a_premium, and
get accustomed to_the money,_making_them less_apt_to convert. This_is
particularly troublesome for_those that get their_benefits through their
spouse/partner,_where_the extra money seems substantial because they aren't
paying for benefits or COBRA out of_it.

Probationary_periods are_rather_useless_in any at will employment_state (in
the US, not sure_about international_law). Why put "We can fire you in_90_days
if you don't_perform" in an employment contract when you can simply_fire
someone on day 2 if you_really wanted to?_It_seems_like a decent motivational
tool_perhaps, but in markets like software_it is just another reason for
candidates_to potentially turn down work, where the_alternative (no
probationary period and no expectation_of even 90 days of_work) is_better for
both parties.

~~~
michaelochurch
The probationary period_is to reduce_risk of_lawsuits because at-will
employment_is actually very complicated when it_comes to subjective_evaluation
(i.e. all white collar work) and_no_one wants to_cut_a_severance check_for
someone who is_cut_in the_first_90 days.

"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". For example, if_you
work for a 5,000-person_company and_you're_fired for performance_after_failing
on one_project and being denied transfer, and you_can prove_that someone else
was allowed transfer under_the same circumstances, you_can_possibly win a
discrimination or harassment case_(especially because any negative
communication about you_by management that impedes your_chance_at_transfer can
be construed as harassment;_this is why the common practice_of making
performance reviews_Enron-style-- that is, part of the transfer_packet--
exposes_a company to severe legal risk).

If_you_apply to a 5-person company and_get_fired_in Month 3 because your_boss
(probably the CEO) isn't feeling it,_you probably don't have legal recourse,
because as owner and_manager of the_business, he has the right_to_select
personnel.