Herald on 90 day bill
Workers should welcome it because there can be no better incentive to additional employment than a reduction in the risk that a new employee represents to a small business.
And as some have said, it gives confident employees the option to use the law as a positive, and say “Look give me a chance, and if you are not happy, you can let me go within 90 days”.
Capable and conscientious workers have nothing to fear. In the ordinary course of business employers do not go to the trouble and expense of hiring somebody only to dismiss them lightly and go through the whole costly, time-consuming exercise again. In an ideal world recruitment methods would be foolproof and the need for a probationary employment period would not arise. But in the real world the best selection procedures will occasionally fail to ensure a job applicant is reliable and temperamentally suited to the job.
Indeed. In fact it can take, oh a couple of months sometimes, to really work out if someone is suited to a job.
The same is true for the applicant, of course. But if the job or boss proves unbearable the newly hired employee can leave at will. Despite the passage of the “fire at will” law, as critics call it, it is a fair bet the number of employers who invoke their newly acquired right will be a fraction of the number of employees who quit a job without warning, due notice, discussion or reason.
And even if there is a notice provision in an employment contract, this is almost impossible to enforce in the vast majority of cases should an employee quite suddenly.
That can happens to the best employers at any time. Small business owners can be left scrambling to cover a sudden departure as they urgently seek a replacement. There is nothing the law can reasonably do to prevent it, but the right to quit at will should be remembered when labour unions rail at the 90-day probation bill.
Heh, “quit at will” – a nice phrase.