1-2 years ago, before all the public coverage, I was interviewing one person from amazon. He was not happy with his former work situation (pager duty pushed on him, requests in the evening, ...) and he was terminated in the trial period because he brought it up to HR. I didn't believe him at that time.

What is a trial period in US terms? Isn't employment 'at will' ?

The main thing about trial periods in the US is that benefits and perks generally don't kick in until after. For instance, at my old job, people didn't start accumulating vacation days until they were 90 days in.

It's another one of those inventions that heavily favor the employer at the expense of the employee.

we call it "probation" in Canada. Its usually 3-6 months

The maximum length of this kind of probation is, afaik, set by provincial labour law and is 3 months in all but three provinces (nb, pei, and the Yukon). Employers can go lower, but not higher.

Though I think they can withhold benefits for longer than that separately from the probation period, but that's kind of rare I think.

Really withholding benefits in Canada is pretty different than in the us, though, since here it means you don't buy glasses for three months and there it means you'd better not break your legs.

(IANAL)

That's interesting. With the exception of retirememt contributions, I've never worked at a place that withheld any benefits. I have had trial periods where I got a raise after proving suitability for the role.

I don't think (most) benefits are withheld in canada (or in europe). The point of probation there is to provide an initially relaxed (labor protections wise) 3~6 months "at will" to check for actual suitability since you don't really know whether things work out until work's actually been done. Breaking the relationship later is a more involved and expensive process and the thinking is that within the early 3~6 months the employee would know whether they want to stay, and the company whether they want to keep.

agreed. I got my benefits (stuff that the province doesn't cover - like perhaps some $$ prescription or eyeglasses) day 1 of new job, and probabtion is 6 months (i.e. can be let go without the whole "improvment plan"). Other places will have shorter probation and maybe full benefits after 30 days

edit: I am in Ontario and I know a guy in the medical feild that had a 1 year probabtion

It makes more sense where it's not "at will" employment

For the US, it makes more sense if you see it as the company nickel-and-diming employees.

That's not necessarily why employers do it, I'm sure some do though.

It costs a lot in terms of productivity, time, and dollars to bring someone new into the company. As an employer I don't know if you've completely misrepresented yourself or not- especially as a developer. I've hopefully done my best to make a good hire and be forthcoming in helping you make your best decision as well, but just like in dating, we're not necessarily sure how this thing is going to go at first.

In the tech industry I've never come across an employer that withheld insurance during the first 90 days, and most I've come across have you accruing your vacation immediately as well. I've seen employers in other industries (like manufactring) withhold all benefits until the 90 day mark though.

All my discussions with new hires on the 90 day trial period go something like this: "We're going to meet more frequently than we normally would, I'm going to give you more frequent feedback than I normally would, and I'm going to review your work much more often than I normally would in order to make sure that you're not getting lost in how we do things and that I can help you out with anything as fast as possible."

If you're a smart employer/manager you're going to use that arbitrary trial period to aggressively make sure your new people succeed. If you suck, you look for a problem and cut bait.

It's a matter of company policy, not employment law.

It depends on the state, though most are "at will." Some companies will do a "trial period" in which some of your benefits are held back for anywhere from 60-90 days, so that may be what the parent is referring to.

It depends on the state. Most companies have a 'trial period' where the manager doesn't have to go through the full HR process to remove someone. It's pretty much a 'you're an employee, but not really an employee.'

Personally, I think it's pretty crappy as it means that the company has all the leverage if they make a bad hiring decision, the person is let go after already potentially leaving another job for this one.

This is true, but a smart (and moral) manager will still try to not make bad hiring decisions. If the team sees a constant rotation of new faces they may get scared off.

On the other hand I question the "wisdom" of saying anything negative about a past employer, no matter how deserved it may be. It's just a big "never do it!".

I mean where would we get to, if people actually would start telling the truth!

It's one thing to openly express discontent with a prior employer. It's another thing to do it in an interview.

I know that this is considered "bad style".

But I still disagree. I don't own a company (yet), but I would like to have employees, who are strong enough, to tell the truth, even though it might hurt some feelings. And if they honestly can tell me, what they like or did not at their former place, it would be much easier for me and also for them, to decide, if they would fit in this (imaginary) company.

And if, later, my company would be bad in their perception, they may say so, in the next interview.

I just like solid facts, even though they are sometimes not nice.

It's not necessarily about "bad style". It's possible to share legitimate reasons for leaving a company if asked in an interview, but you have to be careful. It's really bad to turn it into a time to badmouth another company.

It is frankly risky to say anything bad about a previous company, because even something minor like, "management micromanaged too much" could be interpreted by a cynical interviewer as "this person doesn't get anything done and whines when someone asks him what he's doing with his time." But even a good interviewer will take it as a bad sign if you spend five minutes enumerating everything you hate about your previous/current employer.

> It's possible to share legitimate reasons for leaving a company if asked in an interview

If the legitimate reason would be, that they micromanaged everything, because of lack of trust, even though I delivered results and that the general atmosphere were a mixture of hate and distrust, then I would very much say so in the next interview, if asked. And if they then won't take me, I would assume it is because the new place is similar and they just don't like people talk about it. So no place where I want to be anyway ...

If you start talking about an atmosphere of "hate and distrust", you're getting into territory where it sounds like either 1) you are hyper negative and make exaggerated complaints, or 2) you lack the social skills to recognize that an interview is not the place to vent, even if your complaints are legitimate.

An interviewer can't see anything about your history except what you tell them, and any decent interviewer will know not to take your word as gospel. So you need to look at anything you say through the eyes of a person who knows is making a guess at the accuracy of everything you say. It's totally possible that if you say your old employer has a culture of distrust and hate, you're telling the absolute truth. It's also possible though that you are a problematic employee and you're bitter because you were fired/pushed out for being unpleasant and incompetent. So you need to be careful how you present your story so that it's hard to interpret negatively.

I've seen employees who really didn't do anything useful. I've seen managers work with them for months trying to resolve issues. I've seen those same managers resort to micromanaging because at some point that's all you can do. And I've seen those problematic employees finally get pushed out and then rant on Facebook and in person about how terrible their manager and/or the company were, when I know for a fact that they were the bulk of the problem.

Imagine if you asked the interviewer how they felt about their current employer and they told you it's pretty good except that the guy you're replacing was terrible, that he was incompetent and constantly angry and despite constant oversight he never delivered anything of value. This should be a point of concern for you. Was the previous employee the entire problem? Is the position overworked? Did manager deal with it but berating the employee to just do more rather than working with the employee to fix the problems? And will the company badmouth you to others if/when you leave?

And this is exactly what both sides can find out, if people are encouraged to speak openly.

A bad employee stays a bad employee, even though he hides the truth by not bitching and a bad company stays bad, even though nobody dares to talk about it. But with honesty people find out those things more quickly ...

The interviewer is not evaluating your old company. To the extent that the interviewer asks, they are trying to find out about you. The interviewer at WidgetsCo doesn't care at all about the work environment at FlibbetsCo unless he's thinking about interviewing there himself or he's considering poaching some employees. If the interviewer at WidgetsCo asks "why are you leaving Flibbets?", he's actually trying to find out if there's a problem with you.

If you want to speak up at your current employer to resolve issues, I would generally encourage that. There's clear value in being honest with your employer and trying to work out issues (though there can also be risk if you have a really unhealthy relationship with management). Being "honest" with an interviewer about your current company doesn't solve anything. You won't fix problems with your current employer by telling a new company about them. You won't likely discover anything useful about the new company. And they won't likely learn anything useful about you, because it's impossible for them to tell if you're just bitter and spiteful or if you had legitimate problems caused by the company.

I worked for a smaller company that did not have an HR department. You actually could tell the truth. That was pretty awesome. I wish more places were like that.

Don't be silly. "Truth" has context. This is like saying you should tell everybody about the trouble you have in your marriage - because "truth". The new employer has no business knowing what trouble you had internally - and worse, new employers don't like it because they will assume what you do in this interview you will do in the next one - when you leave that new job and now talk about the new company's internals.

> when you leave that new job and now talk about the new company's internals

See also the other reply, but I seriously don't see why that would be bad for my (imaginary) company, unless I want to hide, that my company is indeed "bad"

> This is like saying you should tell everybody about the trouble you have in your marriage - because "truth" And no it is not. You don't tell everybody, but your close friends - because they are interested and might be able to help

And having a potential employee telling honestly you, what he did not like at his former place, is a very good context for useful information, to find out, if he fits.

Because if he didn't liked it for example, that in the last company they expected results ... than you know, that he probably won't fit in your place as well.

But if he tells you, that they focused much more on formalities, than on results, then you maybe say "welcome home", we also like more the latter ...

See the other comment I wrote below in response to @20yrs_no_equity

http://work.chron.com/should-say-asked-previous-employers-32...

> A prospective new employer may ask you why you left your previous job and what you liked and didn’t like about your employer. This line of questioning is designed not only to learn more about you and your professional history but also to find out about how you’re likely to characterize your new job in the future. If you talk poorly or complain, it sends a red flag that you are unprofessional and lack company loyalty.

> how you’re likely to characterize your new job in the future. If you talk poorly or complain, it sends a red flag that you are unprofessional and lack company loyalty.

If a company expects me to lie in the future about my potential bad experience, it would not be a company I would work for. Sure, just "bitching" and whinery complaining ... no, nobody likes that and people who do that. But why should a company get my loyality, if they are indeed bad?

How then can others be warned about abusive - and in the case of amazon they were abusive[1]- past employers?

[1] FWIW, I've had some bad jobs, usually because they were startups where people didn't know what they were doing. Well meaning people in over their heads can be tough but fun and the furthest things from abusive. Amazon was organized to abuse employees as a consequence of protecting management egos.

    > How then can others be warned about abusive 

Did you already forget that bluelu - the parent commenter - talked about a job interview here? You feel you need to warn your new employer to not apply for a job at your previous one?

Nobody prevents you from doing everything else. But this is a job interview, and how you behave here shows how you will behave in the future. You think it's a good idea to show your new employer that you will shit-talk them next time?

There's a big difference between "shit-talk" and honesty.

Please read what I wrote above about "truth". You don't tell people your marriage problems because "truth". You just don't go around telling people about your private problems under the banner of "truth". This sounds like yellow page journalism - "We must drag this into the public because 'truth'!". No. It's telling you choose to ignore 90% of what I said in the comment you replied to. You just like to argue and "to be right". I don't think you are actually interested in truth, but it's a nice narrative tat you carry in front of you like a holy banner.

This topic has been discussed here on HN repeatedly, what I said initially has always been the recommendation.

http://idealistcareers.org/you-left-a-job-on-bad-terms-now-w...

http://work.chron.com/should-say-asked-previous-employers-32...

> A prospective new employer may ask you why you left your previous job and what you liked and didn’t like about your employer. This line of questioning is designed not only to learn more about you and your professional history but also to find out about how you’re likely to characterize your new job in the future. If you talk poorly or complain, it sends a red flag that you are unprofessional and lack company loyalty.

Over and out, it's getting ridiculous.

> I didn't believe him at that time.

why not?

Lack of experience on my side? What he told me sounded unbelievable and I thought he made it up.