Most states in the US have at-will employment terms. Probationary periods are common in other countries. And yet no one seems to want to do what you're suggesting.
So Jim is right, in practice the only way HR is going to let you have a probationary period is to use contractors, and that limits your hiring pool significantly.
That's fine if you're single, but if you've got kids that might mean switching doctors multiple times, which is a gigantic huge deal. Also, you have multiple periods of time where you don't really know your benefits which is terrifying. And if the company does drop you after three months for whatever reason, now you're doing it again.
And keep in mind it's definitely a seller's market if you're a good dev. It's incredibly unlikely that the 3-month contract is the only offer on the table. So all things being equal, who would take it?
>And keep in mind it's definitely a seller's market if you're a good dev. It's incredibly unlikely that the 3-month contract is the only offer on the table. So all things being equal, who would take it?
I don't feel any additional security whatsoever being a least tenured employee vs contractor. Maybe there's some statistical benefit, but it seems pretty small. So for me, it's practically zero cost to do the contract-to-hire thing. Any financial costs are just built into my rate. I'd rather spend my hiring currency on other stuff like working remote full time and extra vacation days.
It probably makes a difference that I spent a big chunk of my career as a self employed consultant. I do remember feeling some anxiety when I first transitioned from a regular employee to consulting. But I quickly learned my anxiety was unfounded.
Your personal preferences aren't really the topic at hand.
But nobody is arguing with you. Nobody is making the contrasting argument. That simply isn't the conversation anybody is having. It's an interesting conversation, it just doesn't happen to be this conversation.