The Government has decided to introduce a ninety day trial period for new employees. Once again we see a complex issue being divided between left and right, employers vs employees. As someone who has been on both sides of this fence I think this is a good move.

Being an employer can be a harrowing experience. Under current legislation if you take someone on it is almost impossible to terminate their employment unless you follow a process that is long and painful. An employer is obligated to try and take remedial action to get the employee to perform. You need to have verbal warnings, followed by written warnings, and final mediation that follows strict rules.

And if as an employer you fail to follow this process you can be taken to the employment tribunal and face awards of tens of thousands of dollars. The risk is such that small companies might just try to live with a under performing employee rather than take the risk of trying to terminate them.

The problem for employers is that it is very difficult to gauge how a potential employee is going to perform. Small business owners usually are experts in their fields, not HR. As a result they have poor skills when it comes to interviews. Even large companies with dedicated HR departments know that finding the right candidate is more art than science.

Part of the problem is that former employers are not free to talk honesty about their former employees. They must be very careful that what they say is totally factual, otherwise any comment that is negative will possibly lead to a slander law suit. You might read on a employee CV that they managed a shop, but you might not find out they were let go following money going missing.

Bottom line is that you can't tell how a employee will work out before they start work. You need some time to let them fit into the organisation and start making a productive contribution, especially in software development which is my area of experience.

So from an employers perspective a trial period is very useful in ensuring that a new employee really fits in the company and is productive. It means they can terminate employees without the risk of huge penalties because they didn't follow a long process.

That is all very well for employers, but what about the poor employee? If used in good faith this move will be positive. For employees that are up to the job there is no change; they will not be terminated. The big difference is that rather than a long drawn out and stressful process for the employee there will be a short termination. Termination is always unpleasant, but to be honest as an employee I would rather an employer be up front and take definitive action than be constrained to a long process that ultimately ends with the same outcome.

In addition I would rather be doing a job that has genuine value than know that my employer was following a process, and that in fact I wasn't wanted or needed.

But not all employers act in good faith. This system should not permit employers to create revolving door employment, where employees are hired with the intent of terminating them prior to the end of the trial. If this expedited process were used for any more than ten percent of employees I would have serious concerns that it was being abused.

Small businesses cannot withstand paying employees that are not performing for months on end during a long process where they are given the opportunity to improve. And at the end of the day if these businesses go under we are allowing the poor employees to threaten our small businesses, and neither will benefit.

A brief disclaimer: I am not politically affiliated. Please don't assume that my support of a single National Party position makes me "right wing" any more than my support of the Secular society and open source software makes me "left wing". I call myself a Rationalist and Stoic. I believe evidence should be the basis of policy, not blind ideology. As such I welcome rational argument and evidence to prove my position above wrong.