20
90 Day Trial Period for New Employees – “Name and Shame” or “Name and Gain?” 1 in 5 fired, 4 in 5 hired..
2 Comments | Posted by James Cozens in Jobs
It is hard to run a job blog without mentioning the debate currently raging about extending the 90 Day trial period, so I am going to jump in here and add to the debate.
There are a series of “Fairness at Work” rallies this Saturday and Sunday in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin to voice opposition to the employment law changes introduced to Parliament on Thursday. The Unions, supported by Labour, are actively “naming and shaming” using examples of the 90 trial working against employees through the Fairness web site
It would be good to have some balanced debate I think. As a recruiter I have seen the 90 day trial certainly work very well for employees where employers who are unsure have been able to take a risk (and it is a risk, especially for a small business). It is also very relevant that most recruitment companies offer a 3 month guarantee on placement – so it is in their interest as well as the employer, and the employee, to make sure that everything works well.
So as well as “Name and Shame” I would love some examples of “Name and Gain” – where employees have benefitted from the 90 day trial - for example – through employees being given opportunities they would not otherwise have been given/employers offering roles they would not otherwise have offered….
The Unions quote Department of Labour statistics that 1 in 5 workers on a 90 day trial will be fired. Others would argue that means 4 out 5 will be hired..
So comments appreciated from both sides of the debate…It would also be nice to hear from employers where people have started jobs and the employee has left within a short period of time – after all an employment relationship works both ways…
A poll is running today (21st August) on Yahoo (current results below) – please note they are not asking about the “fairness” of the 90 day trial period – just the ending of employment with 1 day to go
90 day trial poll
2 Comments for 90 Day Trial Period for New Employees – “Name and Shame” or “Name and Gain?” 1 in 5 fired, 4 in 5 hired..
Anon (don't want to breach my employees privacy) | August 21, 2010 at 11:27 am
Russell Phillips | April 4, 2011 at 4:04 pm
It is our observation here at Automotive Employment NZ that the 90 Day Trial Period likely benefits job seekers.
Those who are in a position of strength in terms of their ability to secure employment have limited concern for the trial period; indeed it could be argued the employee could negotiate to have the trial period removed as a pre-employment condition.
Those in a position of weakness in terms their ability to secure employment, or, who may be viewed less employable, now have an opportunity to demonstrate they have the capabilities sought. This opportunity would not exist without a trial period.
The 90 trial period has been in place for some time for companies with less than 20 employees and it has worked. Businesses have demonstrated confidence in their hiring decisions.
The argument must therefore shift to whether it is fair or not for large companies to impose a trial period?
In the past 30 years I noted that more often than not New Zealand has had a trial period for all employees so trial periods are not new they have just not been in place for a few years. In many countries such as Australia and various other evolved nations trial periods are the norm.
Perhaps being in the over 40’s age group my perception of fair is somewhat coloured by an old fashioned belief that the employer pays my wages and therefore has a right to see if I’m ok prior to committing long term to my employment. This is how it worked in my day and I accepted the responsibility of proving my worth with pride; indeed the very action of trying to exceed the employers expectations probably became a habit after the first few months and may very well have been responsible for laying the ground work required for a successful relationship in the first place.
During the years of trial periods it was noted there were a few poor performing employees who did not perform well during trial periods and frankly it was a god send the rest of us didn’t have to put up with them long term. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a person to prove their worth to their employer for a short period of three months? For the rest of the employees and managers who are stuck with an employee with a chip on their shoulder and a bad attitude the lack of trial periods cannot be a bad thing…..can it?
I offered a role to a candidate where we were unable to obtain a good reference. Before the law change there was no way I would have taken the risk of employing this person, but my “gut feel” was he was right for the job. He was, and after only a couple of weeks, I removed the 90 day trial.
So this is one case of a “Gain”