Trying before Hiring, is this normal?

[Brian Rubin]

Hey guys, I'd like your honest opinion on something. This morning I had a second interview with an online technology magazine which will remain nameless. They like me, a lot apparently (they said they're ready to hire me), but they're not sure what I can do for them, as I've been writing about gaming for years, rather than business or technology. Their solution is to bring me on board for a week as a contractor and try me out, to see if I can fit into their business and learn the tricks of the trade.

Personally I'm thrilled to be given a chance, and it might be a great opportunity. If it works out, and I do well, it'll be a permanent fit. It's a hell of a lot better than the contract jobs I have now, where work is by the hour, and not always guaranteed. When I told my girlfriend the good news, she was skeptical. "Why don't they just hire you?", she'd ask, and rightly so. I tried to explain it to her in the same way they explained it to me, but to no avail.

My question, is this sort of this usual or proper? Should I just be hired on the spot, since they want to give me the job, or is it right of them to want to try me out first, since my skills are indeed all over the map? I do feel I could do this job well, since my skills in writing are there and my interest level is high.

I'm nervous as hell about it, though they told me not to be nervous and just do my best. Personally, I'm very excited about the opportunity, and am going to do some reasearch over the weekend in preparation. This would be a dream job for me, so I'm thrilled. Anyway, I just wanted to know what y'all think of this. Thanks!

[Lunch of Kong]

Hey, this way you get to try them out too. If there are people there that you can't stand, don't take them up on their permanent employment offer. You don't even have to add them to your employment history if you seek a job elsewhere.

[Alan Au]

This sounds like a reasonable arrangement, except that a week is rather short -- I would have expected them to try having you onboard for a month or so (assuming it's a monthly magazine).

- Alan

[Bullhajj]

It's probably less to do with your skills and more to do with your ability to work with the others on your team and vice versa.

That's not to say your skills are not important--it just seems like it's going to be hard to assess writing skills in a single week. You'll barely have time to get your feet wet, much less finish a project.

[Brian Rubin]

Well, in my first interview with these guys, I took a spelling test and wrote up a test article, which they liked, so maybe they feel they've already assesed my skills well enough. <shrug>

[GMicek]

When you left the room they undoubtedly talked about the fact that you play videogames and fear for the lives of their employees.

[Bullhajj]

I think you should go in on Monday with your penis hanging out of your fly. That'll impress 'em for sure!

[Brian Rubin]

I think you should go in on Monday with your penis hanging out of your fly. That'll impress 'em for sure!
You've seen my penis?

[Jason McCullough]

Well, I'd kind of prefer companies do it that way, to be honest. I personally think the entire interviewing process is kind of useless - but they (and you) should be able to tell pretty quick if they just throw you in.

I dunno, they could either be cheap idiots or geniuses.

[Bullhajj]

I think you should go in on Monday with your penis hanging out of your fly. That'll impress 'em for sure!
You've seen my penis?

You're right. Strike that!

I'll give it some more thought and get back to you. :)

[stusser]

I do this all the time when hiring indians, although one week is indeed really short. I set up a 90 day trial period after which they're either offered a permanent position or not. Fact of the matter is that you can only see so much in a phone interview and technical ability is only 40% of the job. It's far more important to show up every day on time, work hard, manage aggressive clients adeptly, and fit in with the rest of my staff.

I must admit that I don't do it in the US though. We do in-person interviews here, for one, and unreliability and general sucking ass is a much smaller problem.

[Bullhajj]

stusser, you remind me of a real estate agent I worked with one time. We went into a listed house to look around and she sniffed the air and said: "Asians. Gah."

Some people don't even try to hide their feelings.

[stusser]

You have NO idea.

[Bullhajj]

I think I do.

[stusser]

Every definition of prejudice I can find includes the concept of a negative conviction which is preconceived. I've worked with indians for years. My extremely negative conviction is based upon experience and is entirely work-related.

I could tell stories about how much they suck to justify it, but that would have to wait for another thread.

Also from experience, I prefer not to hire women for technical positions. Just had too many problems with them. I am sexually attracted to women and more importantly I like women-- do my hiring preferences make me misogynistic or sexist?

[Ben]

Before this thread gets derailed because stusser is a jackass(who really shouldn't be admitting so many illegal things), the job search system is so inefficient it makes me very angry. So much information gathering, very high transaction costs(so to speak), I definitely think this week trial is a good idea.

[Bullhajj]

Well that proves it. Heavens knows you can't find women sexually attractive and be a misogynistic sexist.

[stusser]

Yup yup the internet never fails to provide ad hominem attacks and straw man fallacies in every thread with more than one point of view. Thanks for representing the lowest common denominator y'all.

[Brian Koontz]

If you have a sufficient portfolio of your work there is no need to "try before you buy". The best justification for this sort of thing is ignorance. Its the employee's fault if the employer is ignorant of him.

Also, getting a free employee for a week, or a month, or however long until the employee figures out what's going on is a possibility. If this kind of thing can be installed as an ingrained *system* Corporate America would declare a National Holiday.

[Talisker]

If you have a sufficient portfolio of your work there is no need to "try before you buy".
Wrong.

Just 'cause a graphic designer has a fantastic portfolio, that doesn't say anything about their ability to work to spec, meet deadlines, work with the team, how well they'll fit into the corporate environs, etc etc etc.

Further -- even if a company doesn't tell you they're doing a "trial" period up front, that doesn't mean they won't release you immediately if they realize you're not a good fit a week or two in.

If there *is* a stipulated trial period where you're working as a contractor, the hourly rate should be appropriate -- we pay our contractors a good chunk more per hour than our salaried full employees.

[Bullhajj]

What Andrew is saying about new hires is true. If they're using this one week period, it's to assuage the feelings of the people already working there about the new hire.

[Brian Rubin]

So it's fairly commonplace these days? I ask because I've never dealt with a situation like this before.

[Bullhajj]

I've never seen the 1 week period, which is sort of odd. But contracting prior to working full time is not uncommon around here.

[Brian Rubin]

I'm unsure about the one week thing myself, but it seems as if they really like me, they just want to test me a bit, so maybe a week is all the time they need. I'm really not sure, and I'm nervous about the whole thing.

[Bullhajj]

I can understand being nervous. You've sort of got to feel under the microscope in this situation because that's how they've set it up. I wouldn't sweat it. The worst that can happen is you like the job, but they realize they dont' want you for whatever reasons. You're no worse off than you are right now, but you got another week's work under your belt. What kind of job is it you're being hired to do?

[DavidCPA]

In my company, there is a six month probationary period after you are hired where you can be canned without too much trouble. It doesn't happen much, but it's available to management if they need it.

-DavidCPA

[Brian Rubin]

I can understand being nervous. You've sort of got to feel under the microscope in this situation because that's how they've set it up. I wouldn't sweat it. The worst that can happen is you like the job, but they realize they dont' want you for whatever reasons. You're no worse off than you are right now, but you got another week's work under your belt. What kind of job is it you're being hired to do?
It's an editorial position for a rather large on-line technology magazine. I don't know the details as of yet.

[Bullhajj]

I'm convinced the week probationary period is just about them wanting to see if you can work well with the rest of the team. You've got nothing to worry about. If it were them looking for some sort of particular skill, there would be more danger it might not work out. You're in, man. You're in.

[steve]

Because it can be difficult to fire people without lawsuits, I think a trial period is fair. We've done that with graphic designers.

[Guido Jones]

What Andrew is saying about new hires is true. If they're using this one week period, it's to assuage the feelings of the people already working there about the new hire.

I think our company is slightly different than others in regard to contractors. Coudl be wrong though.

[Jamie Madigan]

Because it can be difficult to fire people without lawsuits, I think a trial period is fair. We've done that with graphic designers.
Yes and no. Most U.S. states are employment at will, which means that you can fire someone for any reason that doesn't violate their civil rights (e.g., firing them because of their race, sex, because they get pregnant, because of a disability, etc.).

Lawsuits over "wrongful termination" are, I believe, most often discrimination cases ("You fired me because I'm Indian"). That being said, though, I could see why a company would want to try someone on a contract basis first, just to avoid the potential hassle of defending itself.

[Derek Meister]

I would imagine the reason for bringing someone on through a trial period as a contractor has to do with keeping down the risks in terms of costs like their portion of benefit costs, tax collection, etc while you're just a contractor, and not a full-time employee.

[Bullhajj]

I would imagine the reason for bringing someone on through a trial period as a contractor has to do with keeping down the risks in terms of costs like their portion of benefit costs, tax collection, etc while you're just a contractor, and not a full-time employee.

Most places do that by not having your benefits kick in until a few weeks after you start.

[JosieNutter]

I hadn't experienced this sort of thing up until the last few years. Crystal Dynamics hired me on as a salaried employee right away, but my last two jobs had been try-before-you-buy in the beginning.

[Brian Rubin]

I'm convinced the week probationary period is just about them wanting to see if you can work well with the rest of the team. You've got nothing to worry about. If it were them looking for some sort of particular skill, there would be more danger it might not work out. You're in, man. You're in.
I'm hoping and praying that you're right, Tim, I really am.

[Lunch of Kong]

I'm with Tim, Brian. Worry instead about wearing white socks with dark shoes.

[JeffL]

Also from experience, I prefer not to hire women for technical positions. Just had too many problems with them. I am sexually attracted to women and more importantly I like women-- do my hiring preferences make me misogynistic or sexist?

As someone who has been hiring folks into technical roles (HIGHLY technical roles) for over 20 years, I can say that your hiring preferences make you a very poor manager who has excluded a tremendous amount of talent from your potential hiring pool. Coincidence reading this - I just hired a Ph.D. engineer who happens to be female away from Seagate in the last few weeks, and she already is proving to be one of the highest potential folks in our entired R&D organization.

And depending upon who you are hiring for, you'd better build up a pretty good liability pool of cash - there are some laws about excluding people from hiring based upon gender and race.

[Nick Walter]

Also from experience, I prefer not to hire women for technical positions. Just had too many problems with them. I am sexually attracted to women and more importantly I like women-- do my hiring preferences make me misogynistic or sexist?

Anyone aware of any incidents of a QT3 post being used as evidence in a lawsuit? This one might be our first.

[quatoria]

Don't worry, Nick. If Stusser is idiotic enough to post this sort of shit here, he's idiotic enough to brag about it to coworkers and friends. There will be plenty of evidence for the lawsuit without need to drag us in.

[Jamie Madigan]

And depending upon who you are hiring for, you'd better build up a pretty good liability pool of cash - there are some laws about excluding people from hiring based upon gender and race.
Yes, like these (http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_laws.html), assuming he does business in the U.S. And other countries have very similar laws.

I suspect stusser's just trolling, but if not he's obviously setting himself and his employer up for a big fat lawsuit. Not to mention missing out on excellent would-be employees.

[stusser]

Was going to type out a reply, but you're too naive to make it worthwhile. Lets agree to disagree. Hug?

[Bullhajj]

Was going to type out a reply, but you're too naive to make it worthwhile. Lets agree to disagree. Hug?

READ: was going to say something else but realized me and my employer are potentially in a heck of a lot of trouble so wisley deciding to shut up.

This public service brought to you by Elhajj Labs. :)

[Jakub]

If you have a sufficient portfolio of your work there is no need to "try before you buy".
Wrong.

Just 'cause a graphic designer has a fantastic portfolio, that doesn't say anything about their ability to work to spec, meet deadlines, work with the team, how well they'll fit into the corporate environs, etc etc etc.
Let's not forget to mention all the fake portfolios out there. There's a reason game companies want you to do a supervised sample before you're hired.

[Jamie Madigan]

Was going to type out a reply, but you're too naive to make it worthwhile.
Was this directed at me? If so, what exactly am I being naive about? That it's illegal to pass over someone only because she's female or Indian? Because that's demonstrably true. It's a fact.

Or am I naive about your inability to work with women or Indians? Because I never disputed that. I just pointed out that it's potentially depriving you of good employees and that it's illegal. Again, demonstrably true.

[Ben Sones]

Also from experience, I prefer not to hire women for technical positions. Just had too many problems with them. I am sexually attracted to women and more importantly I like women-- do my hiring preferences make me misogynistic or sexist?

In that you are willing to make the assumption that these problems share a causal relationship with the gender of your employees, yes. Also, I'd be careful how publically you say things like that--in the US, your hiring policies are not only misogynistic, but also illegal.

I'm cool with trial periods (for any employee), though. I think they are a good idea.

[Jason McCullough]

Every definition of prejudice I can find includes the concept of a negative conviction which is preconceived. I've worked with indians for years. My extremely negative conviction is based upon experience and is entirely work-related.

I could tell stories about how much they suck to justify it, but that would have to wait for another thread.

Also from experience, I prefer not to hire women for technical positions. Just had too many problems with them. I am sexually attracted to women and more importantly I like women-- do my hiring preferences make me misogynistic or sexist?

Both. Not cool, zeus.

[Brian Rubin]

Getting back on topic, tomorrow is my "first day", and I'm both excited and terrified. I'm hoping and praying that this works out. Thanks for all the encouragement and advice, guys. I really appreciate it.

[Bullhajj]

You'll do fine!

Not sure if it helps, but my 17th birthday here is what my mom told me the night before I left for Navy bootcamp: Get some sleep, remember to wear your clean undies.

Sage advice the night before most any situation. :)

[Ben]

Hopefully your boss hasn't had any bad experience with white employees in the past.

[Stroker Ace]

Hopefully your boss hasn't had any bad experience with white employees in the past.oh man, i need to get some popcorn and a 64oz cola... this is going to be a good show :D

[Bill Dungsroman]

Hey stusser, I want you to say hello to your new boss, Geetha Subramanian. She's heard a lot about you.

[Brian Rubin]

Back on topic, here's my first story (http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=EU-Delays-Decision-on-Microsoft-Time-Warner-Deal&story_id=26360) for these guys. Does it look okay? It took some decent editing. I am so nervous right now.

[JosieNutter]

Looks fine to me! Just about the right length, imo.

[Brad Grenz]

Back on topic, here's my first story (http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=EU-Delays-Decision-on-Microsoft-Time-Warner-Deal&story_id=26360) for these guys. Does it look okay? It took some decent editing. I am so nervous right now.

My only criticism would be that you hedge a little in a couple places which I would avoid. Example:

Microsoft already is seen as a monopoly in Europe, and Time Warner's participation in the ContentGuard acquisition deal probably set off alarms in the antitrust community.

I think eliminating the word "probably" would make it sound more professional. Obviously if the story is about an EU antitrust investigation, it's safe to say alarm bells went off in the antitrust community.

[Brian Rubin]

Thanks for the input! :)

[Bullhajj]

Hey stusser, I want you to say hello to your new boss, Geetha Subramanian. She's heard a lot about you.

Heh. Otherwise known as the karmic solution. Thanks for sharing, Bill.

[Brian Rubin]

Update: Well, they're going to try me out for another month. Apparently I'm good at some things and not so good at others, and they want to evaluate how much I can do for them in a month's time. I'm gonna do it, but should I be strung along like this?

[Anaxagoras]

Update: Well, they're going to try me out for another month. Apparently I'm good at some things and not so good at others, and they want to evaluate how much I can do for them in a month's time. I'm gonna do it, but should I be strung along like this?

You're getting paid the whole time, right? So why does it matter? At worst, they dump you after a month and you can view it as a 5 week contract. (one month + one week)

If you want to know what's "normal", their multiple probation periods seems a bit odd, but not terribly alarming. Perhaps they've made several bad hiring decisions in the recent past, and are rather gunshy. But whether you view this as they're "stringing you along", "are extremely hesitant", or "just like to try out their employees before hiring", the end result is the same: this 5 week period is good money, good experience, and might lead to something more substantial and permanent within the company.

[Bullhajj]

Update: Well, they're going to try me out for another month. Apparently I'm good at some things and not so good at others, and they want to evaluate how much I can do for them in a month's time. I'm gonna do it, but should I be strung along like this?

It's hard to say without knowing the context. Is this how all your peers started? Are you missing out on any benefits that others doing a similar job are getting?

It's not a position I would want to be in, so I would probably keep looking for work, unless it's a new career you're trying to break into and this is a big break for you.

[Bullhajj]

this 5 week period is good money, good experience, and might lead to something more substantial and permanent within the company.

Well, yeah, sure. If you want to be really positive about it. :)

[Talisker]

How does your contractor rate compare to what your salary *will* be if they bring you in full-time? It should be higher, since you're absorbing more risk (and tax liability) as a contractor. And they're not paying bennies.

[Brian Rubin]

<bump> I GOT THE JOB!!! I am so happy. Thanks for all the words of encouragement.

[Jamie Madigan]

Nice! Congrats!

Now, if stusser would just get sued for discrimination... ;)

[Bullhajj]

<bump> I GOT THE JOB!!! I am so happy. Thanks for all the words of encouragement.

Thanks hell, we want 5% for the first 4 weeks! :)

Kidding, congrats!

[DennyA]

Congrats, Brian!