Expert says this common practice is more trouble than it’s worth
March 31, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Hiring, In This Week's E-Newsletter, Latest News & Views, Law
Here’s a step one expert says most companies can take to reduce the risk of lawsuits when new employees aren’t working out:
Eliminate the new hire probationary period.
That’s what HR consultant Hunter Lott recommends. Many companies put new hires on a 90-day probation and tell them they can be fired for any reason in that time.
However, as Lott points out, most employees are “at-will” and can always be fired for any legal reason. The probationary period makes sense for union and government employees, who usually have some restrictions on how they can be terminated.
But for everyone else, it makes little sense and can create confusion about an employee’s status once the 90 days are over, Lott says.
You can still specify employees don’t receive benefits until working for a certain amount of time, but Lott recommends avoiding words like “probation,” “temporary” and “permanent.”
Do you put new employees on probation? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments section below.
Tags: Hunter Lott, new hires, probation
March 31st, 2009 at 7:38 am
Why use “probationary” anymore? I completely agree. New employees should not be subject to the negative connotation of this word as their employment status right out of the gates. I have always preferred “introductory” as an alternative or would really prefer to not label this first 90 (or whatever) days at all.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:57 am
We still have the 90-day period in which an employee may be fired without prior written disciplinary action. We call these employees “introductory”. I think the employees and the public in general recognize the “probationary period” as a formal period in which discharge without progressive discipline is acceptable and in having a probationary period a company may avoid lawsuits.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“You can call an apple a banana” but you still have to go through the progressive steps to prove why you fire someone. Depending on your state’s unemployment commmission, it’s been my experience they side with the former employee when granting unemployment benefits.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Being an “at will” state is fairly meaningless — terminated employees can still sue for unlawful termination and they frequently win. And unemployment insurance is awarded to everyone these days, even if they’ve been fired for cause — we lost appeals for employees who were fired for sleeping on the job or coming to work drunk. The only appeal I’ve won is when the employee admitted to having stolen cash from the company.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Tom and Randi, do you work in California?
I do and everything you’re saying is true! It’s unbelievable what people are getting away with. When we appeal the decision and all parties go before the judge, the employee is still found “not at fault”. It’s very disheartening.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:58 am
We have a 90-day introductory period during which a new employee can be terminated without going through the progressive disciplinary process. It’s considered an evaluation period, giving us time to determine if they employee can perform the job they have been hired to do in a satisfactory manner. The down side I see to this arrangement is that the employee is normally on their “best” behavior during that 90 day time period, so sometimes, you don’t get a true picture of them as a whole.