[daok]

>At AppSumo, we run paid trials with potential teammates before bringing them on full-time to ensure they’re the right fit.

Not sure that is something I would personally enjoy. While I understand you must fit in, having this process highlights that leaving your current company is even riskier as you might not make the cut and end up with nothing. The trial is one-sided, with all the risks for the new employee, not AppSumo. I understand that any change of job is similar where you may stay forever, however, saying that way make it worse somehow.

[replwoacause]

I wouldn’t never work for a company that does this.

[crowcroft]

At least they're transparent about it. Plenty of people end up working at companies with this attitude without ever knowing it. Especially in sales orgs.

[southernplaces7]

I don't see how it's much different from working at a company for any period of time even as a fully onboarded employee, aside from specific legal obligations that possibly protect your employment. In any place where firing at will is legal, they can toss you at any time for almost any pretext and claim you weren't a correct fit. It applies in general even if you're fully hired, barring some specific contract (that they might anyhow wiggle their way out of).

[teractiveodular]

It's a slightly more explicit version of a probationary/trial period, which is very common outside the US. (You don't need them in the US, because you can be fired at any time for any reason anyway.)

[ameister14]

>I wouldn’t never work for a company that does this.

Your double negative is genuinely confusing me. Is this intentional, or is it an error?

[makk]

Agree. Unless there is a breakup clause that pays the employee (er, contractor) for severance, it puts all the risk explicitly on the employee, which is horseshit.

[ehnto]

Edit: sorry, you got this question a bunch below. I didn't read ahead.

Are probation periods not a thing in the US? Maybe because of at-will termination?

In Australia most roles have a 3-6 month probation period in which either party can terminate the employment agreement at will. That's essentially a "paid trial period".

After that, employers have much stricter rules for what reasons they can fire you (in theory) and and both employers and employees must give 2 weeks notice or extra if agreed upon in contract.

[Eridrus]

There's no way to make a hiring process that makes everyone happy.

Though the length here was not specified, it could be e.g. 3 days that you can do while still employed.

[FireBeyond]

> 3 days that you can do while still employed

That could easily put you in violation of your employment contract. And could result in your (ex-) employer coming after you, and/or your new employer.

I don't necessarily agree that it should, but it absolutely could.

[Aeolun]

Sure, but do those 3 days tell you so much more than a 30m interview?

You need to work with someone much longer than that to figure out their (non-obvious) flaws.

[xandrius]

Give me a take home exercise, doable in maximum 2-3 days and pay me the salary rate for that period.

I'd be happy and it would be fair.

[kovezd]

As an employee, I've requested the same to early stage startups. No amount of interviews, will give you enough information to assess its potential.

[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.

[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.

[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?