> If employment is terminated for any reason or no reason at all by either employee or employer within the first year, incentives must be returned.
If you want a guarantee, I'd recommend only paying once the guarantee is met. It's much easier than trying to get people to return money they've already assumed was theirs.
I've done tech recruiting for many startups and I typically charge 0 upfront, then 10% of base salary on the employee's start date and 10% after 6mo of full-time employment. In Hurry's case, maybe pay $7.5k on date of hire and $7.5k after 12 months.
I have plenty of folks in my network that would be a great fit and the $15k incentive (for my half) is respectable, but I wouldn't want to work under the terms as proposed unfortunately. A small tweak to the payment structure and this would be an excellent program that I'd jump at.
> It's much easier than trying to get people to return money they've already assumed was theirs.
Yeah, I read that as well and came to a similar conclusion.
My next thought was that I seriously doubt they'd be _able_ to get that money back. What are they going to do, take the recruiting party to court over it? I suppose they could, but I also strongly suspect that between attorney fees and court costs, they'd not be getting much back. They'd be risking fairly significant negative publicity if they attempted it, too.
There are legal reasons why that does not work. For example consider military separation. A candidate is under no obligation to disclose their military/veteran status. If that candidate then becomes mobilized the federal obligation trumps the commercial obligation. Employee leaves and not only are they separated from the work without any repercussion the employer is required to retain that employee in an unpaid status for at least 5 years unless a rare legal exclusion is met.
There is also pregnancy. An employer cannot terminal an employee for taking time to give birth and taking some more time off immediately after.
These are the two most obvious reasons though I am sure there are many more that they cannot enforce.
Frankly - I just don't think paying extra to the new hire makes sense.
Any way you put it - it's essentially just a one time yearly bonus for being referred.
Which... is not something you really put any effort into. And why should that person get a free bonus compared to applicants who apply themselves?
Further - as a new hire, I'm much more interested in making sure that long term compensation is appropriate, and that I have the ability to get decent raises or equity than I am in a 15k one time payout (that comes with a lot of strings).
Yeah, places I've worked that offered referral bonuses typically deferred the bonus for 3-6 months to make sure the referred employee passes "probation" period.
I've actually developed mixed feeling about personal referrals. I know it's supposedly an invaluable pipeline of talent, but it also makes for some real awkwardness. I've referred people who failed the interview process which I found shocking because I know they're qualified. And also I have to try to explain to a friend why they didn't get hired.
Another pitfall of referrals is a lot of people grow and change in their careers and their network probably remembers them in a specific light. I've been referred for jobs where they wanted me to do what I was doing 5 years ago because that's what my colleague remembers of me.
I also tend to think it will enforce more homogeny if you have friends referring friends. Not necessarily and Old Boys Club, but something similar.
> [...] it also makes for some real awkwardness. I've referred people who failed the interview process which I found shocking because I know they're qualified. And also I have to try to explain to a friend why they didn't get hired.
This is a real issue, but one that can be overcome in my experience.
I've referred several people to my employer. I always make it a point to have an "off the record" conversation prior to doing it formally, where I explicitly say why I'm referring the person, why, what attributes/skills I can vouch for, and to what degree. I've done this for people ranging from "a good friend that I've known for decades" to "a guy I literally met at a gas station that mentioned he wanted to find a remote position". Likewise, in the case of friends, I make it clear up front what is actually in my power and what's not.
> Another pitfall of referrals is a lot of people grow and change in their careers and their network probably remembers them in a specific light. I've been referred for jobs where they wanted me to do what I was doing 5 years ago because that's what my colleague remembers of me.
This just seems like poor performance by the recruiting team. Still... I'd rather get an interview for a job I don't want than not get that interview at all. There's always the possibility that we can come to terms.
> I also tend to think it will enforce more homogeny if you have friends referring friends. Not necessarily and Old Boys Club, but something similar.
It gives a lot more influence in the hiring process to engineers. That can (and often does) lead to what you're talking about, but it also means that you have more ability to change things. You can explicitly refer people that are different from the rest of the company in whatever ways you feel are important.
A side effect of this is that the baseline for sign-on bonuses (if you're not "referred") is now effectively 30k. Anyone who applies directly should know that this money is already budgeted.
> Under federal law, the general rule is that employers may deduct certain expenses from their employees' paychecks, as long as the deductions don't bring the employee's earnings below the minimum wage
> Some states prohibit paycheck deductions for debts to the employer, or limit the circumstances under which these deductions may be made. For example, state law might require employers to secure the employee's agreement, on a signed consent form, to withhold this money.
The agreement on the website isn't a signed document. Anyway, there are much easier ways to distribute the bonus: just pay once it's achieved.
essentially giving an additional signing bonus if referred by an internal employee. Wonder if they would still offer that if you just reached out directly to the company.
If you want a guarantee, I'd recommend only paying once the guarantee is met. It's much easier than trying to get people to return money they've already assumed was theirs.
I've done tech recruiting for many startups and I typically charge 0 upfront, then 10% of base salary on the employee's start date and 10% after 6mo of full-time employment. In Hurry's case, maybe pay $7.5k on date of hire and $7.5k after 12 months.
I have plenty of folks in my network that would be a great fit and the $15k incentive (for my half) is respectable, but I wouldn't want to work under the terms as proposed unfortunately. A small tweak to the payment structure and this would be an excellent program that I'd jump at.