How? They either do their work, or they don’t, and then you can fire them in the probation period. And if the manager can’t tell that the employees aren’t doing any actual work, you have a much bigger problem than some remote workers slacking off.
if the manager can’t tell that the employees aren’t doing any actual work
This is one of the biggest issues in most offices around the world, and is the rule, not the exception. It is also a big part of the reason why small businesses can often outbid larger ones - a team of 8 people who all know each other well and who will share in the success or failure of a project won’t slack off, and will hold each other accountable.
Because they are citizens of a foreign country so if they break contact it can be harder to enforce legal punishment. Given the level of access some roles need it can require more scrutiny on who is hired. Slacking off is the least bit of concern here.
I dont have any data but from experience and vibes a majority of remote hires are foreign. Why would someone pay someone nz wage to work remote when you can hire someone who is probably twice as qualified for a quarter of the price.
The only locals that work remote have gotten the job then moved to remote work after they were established in the company.
It might be different in the us where you actually have a ton of local talent within the massive country.
Yeah, that is definilty different in the US and the EU. In fact remote hires from foreign countries are often not feasible due to buroecratic red-tape associated with it.
Most people have to worry about losing money, corporations worry about not making as much money as they wanted.
When the “risk” never even matches the actual risk of having to rely on an employer to live then it really starts to look like the ownership class just shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Interviews are largely pretty useless though. Unless you have an industrial psychologist doing them they’re super subjective and people with personality disorders actually tend to do well in these situations.
You’re putting a hell of a lot of trust in a remote employee. I understand why there would be 5 rounds of interviewing.
How? They either do their work, or they don’t, and then you can fire them in the probation period. And if the manager can’t tell that the employees aren’t doing any actual work, you have a much bigger problem than some remote workers slacking off.
This is one of the biggest issues in most offices around the world, and is the rule, not the exception. It is also a big part of the reason why small businesses can often outbid larger ones - a team of 8 people who all know each other well and who will share in the success or failure of a project won’t slack off, and will hold each other accountable.
Because they are citizens of a foreign country so if they break contact it can be harder to enforce legal punishment. Given the level of access some roles need it can require more scrutiny on who is hired. Slacking off is the least bit of concern here.
Most remote hires are not citizens of a foreign country, where did you even get that?
And you wouldn’t give a recent hire access to very sensitive internas anyway in nearly all cases.
I dont have any data but from experience and vibes a majority of remote hires are foreign. Why would someone pay someone nz wage to work remote when you can hire someone who is probably twice as qualified for a quarter of the price.
The only locals that work remote have gotten the job then moved to remote work after they were established in the company.
It might be different in the us where you actually have a ton of local talent within the massive country.
Yeah, that is definilty different in the US and the EU. In fact remote hires from foreign countries are often not feasible due to buroecratic red-tape associated with it.
If they don’t work well then fire them
There is literally no risk for the corporations that hold all of the cards
Not like there could be delays or loss of revenue or anything!
Nope, no risk At ALL. 🤦♂️
Most people have to worry about losing money, corporations worry about not making as much money as they wanted.
When the “risk” never even matches the actual risk of having to rely on an employer to live then it really starts to look like the ownership class just shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Interviews are largely pretty useless though. Unless you have an industrial psychologist doing them they’re super subjective and people with personality disorders actually tend to do well in these situations.