The standard probation period is six months in the UK. I haven't encountered two years yet, is that even legal? And it's called probation period for a reason, it's a time for both sides to figure out if the arrangement works out and be able to quit with no or little notice otherwise. After that, 3 months notice periods are completely normal so it's good to not get locked into that from day one.

I'm not talking about contractual probation periods. There's a universal two year threshold after which you get extra protections, and before which you can be fired for any reason that's not specifically discriminatory on race, gender, etc + some other very narrow cases. Pretty similar to what 'at will' means in the US. We just have a short statutory notice period.

https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/employment/employment-right...

From the link you posted:

> Even though an employee has fewer employment rights in the first two years of their employment, an employer would be foolish to assume they have carte blanche to dismiss at will.

So while it's true that there's less protection for workers, there is no at will employment in the UK. Probation period probably comes closest to it but is much shorter.

What are you talking about? The US doesn't give carte blanche either. Discrimination law exists. Other labor laws exist. Exactly as this article refers to as being 'not carte blanche' in the UK.

'At will' in the US and the 2 year qualifying period in the UK are practically identical, apart from that the UK has a 2-week statutory notice period. The protections that remain in both the US and UK are almost entirely about protected classes. Even the classes themselves are virtually the same.

"Have they been there less than 2 years?" is the first thing legal will ask you when you want to sack someone in the UK. It's a wholly different status to being protected after the period.

Although now we have "Inside IR35 Contractors" - which is in effect a zero rights employee. I wonder how long until that is the standard.

> Just pick who you work for carefully and make yourself valuable

you realise that's a relatively privileged position in the emplyment market, right? you:

a) have enough choice in employers to be able to pick one

b) have both a profession that allows you to differentiate yourself and the skills that can make you differentiate yourself

that's unfortunately not the case for the majority of employees

I've worked crappy jobs and never worried about getting fired. The crappier your job, the lower the threshold it's considered 'expensive' to replace you. It's not that hard to meet that threshold of contributed value. Employers generally have an incentive to keep you for this reason, unless you're truly terrible or something else is going on with their finances.

It's a little patronizing for you to assume I have no experience of being unprivileged just because our opinions about it differ. Or that those without privilege can't manoeuvre their way into choosing a slightly better job, even if they don't have an absolutely free choice over the space of all possible jobs, or even if they have to take a worse one temporarily in order to transition to where they want to be. Not all poor people are mindless cattle devoid of planning or agency.