AIBU to be horrified by hiring someone expecting to sack them?

[oldefarte]

I work in a pretty intense corporate environment. I recently helped out with an interview process for an early careers/grad role. It’s not for straight out of uni, but someone with 2-3 years post uni experience.

There was a candidate that the one manager liked but the other was a bit unsure about. The manager said to HR that they’d be happy to take the risk and offer them a job, but understand they’d likely need to sack them within 6 months but that’s no issue. I was horrified to hear this.

Surely this is no way to treat someone who is relatively young and leaving a role so early on would impact someone a lot?

Well I think it’s fine to take a gamble and give someone a go even though you think it’s risky, with a view that if they don’t pass probation you could get rid

however, you should also ensure they have every support and the right training etc to ensure they are successful in the role

General rule of thumb I have been taught is you find a way to keep talent. If the candidate is good enough…a business will find a way to keep them. It could be in a different role etc

Dreadful attitude. And why not hope it works out well ?

Why would the have to sack them after 6 months?

I was once hired as a graduate on a six month contract with the “possibility” of renewal. The charity always knew it wasn’t getting renewed and completely deceived me. For this and other reasons it was the worst job I’ve ever had. They wanted me to fail from the start

I guess they mean that one manager thinks they won’t be up to it, and if not they won’t pass probation. Fairly standard in any job, that if you think by 6 months unlikely to perform the job to a good standard, then get rid as so much harder once passed probation. This kid might surprise the skeptical one, it’s not like they are sacking him regardless, he could prove them wrong.

But why even offer the job? Saves pain all round

But nothing is risk free, is it? The person might be good and be kept on, which would be good for everyone.

Well they need to fill the role, so its a risk, may be ok if not then they can fire them if they aren't any good. At least they are getting a chance

The ERA changes mean that from January those with 6 months experience will have unfair dismissal rights. A worrying unplanned consequence may be organisations not taking the risk on a candidate who might or might not work out. I would assume this was the subtext here and that the manager was saying they understand the time the individual will have up prove themselves, but they want to give them a try.

Why couldn't they give them a fix term contract and either end or extend it?

I mean if they're saying they literally WILL sack them after 6 months that seems off. If they're saying they'll see what happens and if they don't make the grade then they obviously COULD sack them that's just stating fact really. Not in a very nice way but it's true they could.

But they shouldn't have decided to do so for definite before the poor sod has even had a chance to set foot in the office!

Surely this is so unfair on someone for them to take the risk and leave a stable job if the new employer didn’t think they’d be up to scratch?