In France there's a 4 month probation period extensible to up to 7 months. It's too long, 7 months makes very little sense, and some companies abuse it. Basically you can pretty much fire at will during this probation period, but after it's _really_ hard to fire under French employment laws. If you're in a field where it's hard to land a job, it's 7 months of butt clenching.

I've worked in a company where I've been let go after 2 months in the probation period, but it was clear I wasn't a good fit with the company culture. This is what the probation period is for, we didn't need 7 months to figure that out. On the other hand, I worked for a consulting company that automatically extended all the probation periods, and laid off people that were on probation if they didn't have enough consulting contracts to feed everybody on the payroll (and then reshuffle contracts among people post-probation that were unfireable).

In Germany we got 6 months. You can get fired faster in this time (2 weeks) but you can also leave faster. I saw employees and employers use this a few times.

The probationary periods in France and Germany address a different public policy issue than the trial period we're discussing here. After the probationary period in France expires, it is legally much more difficult to terminate an employee.

That need does't exist in the US, where employees can be terminated without cause.

Nobody mentioned senior candidates. Not the linked site or the parent you're replying to. Yes, you may want to have a different hiring practice for the few senior members of your team. You may also want to have a different hiring practice for the CTO. Nobody is suggesting these positions are equivalent and should have equivalent hiring practices.

There are companies without probation periods? I've never seen any.

In most companies probation periods are a formality, they're only used for gross incompatibilities. But there are some that use them frequently.

The US has at-will employment in most states, but no explicit probationary period.

3 months is the standard in the UK. It's not often used, but it certainly can be.

> Are they committed to my company and the job or not?

What have you done for them besides offering a rosy mission/vision statement that may or may not end up being a bad joke like a lot of rosy mission/vision statements out there?

Just because you have chosen to call yourself an founder does not compel the Magic Fairy of Labor to provide an endless pool of fans that will throw themselves between yourself and a bullet every time the "needs" of the company demand it.

> Sounds like it's a good litmus test.

Yes, indeed!

Are you committed to the employees or not? Yes, it's a good litmus test...

> Are they committed to my company and the job or not?

That's a giant red flag. Saying that sort of thing... no, I'm not committed to you if that's your attitude. Holy hell in a handcart.

> Are they committed to my company and the job or not?

Unless they are heavily (to the point it provides the overwhelming majority of their material support) invested -- in equity terms -- in your company, why should they be committed to it? Certainly, someone holding -- much less seeking -- at-will employment has little rational reason to be particularly committed to the company, as the company has made relatively little commitment to them (essentially, none beyond paying them for work already done, and not dismissing them for any legally-prohibited reason.)