Human Resources News & Insights

‘The job is yours — in a year’

To avoid missing the opportunity to load up on top talent, many companies are turning to new and interesting hiring practices.

One example: Some employers are hiring workers now, when there’s an abundance of candidates on the market, but letting them start in six months or a year, when (hopefully) the company can pay them.

Deferred start dates are becoming more common, especially among consulting firms, law firms and banks, the Economist reports. Do candidates accept the offers?

In some cases, they have a financial incentive to do so. Credit Suisse, for example, gives candidates six months’ pay when they agree to wait a year before they start working.

Other employers, though, defer start dates without any pay incentive. For some applicants, the situation may look bleak enough that they’ll accept any offer they can get. In other cases, it may be an option candidates willingly accept so they can take time to travel or do volunteer work.

However, many could be reluctant to accept, in case the economy gets worse and their job is eliminated during the waiting period.

Employers should have similar concerns. A year or even six months is a long time, and there’s no guarantee the candidate won’t get an immediate offer in the meantime.

What do you think? Is a deferred start date a good way to take advantage of a large applicant pool, or is it too risky for both employer and employee? Let us know your opinion in the comments section below.

Print Friendly

Subscribe Today

Get the latest and greatest Human Resources news and insights delivered to your inbox.
  • JM

    I can’t imagine this actually working. Unless someone has a savings large enough to live on for a year, how could they afford to do this. Wouldn’t unemployment stop since they’re not looking for a job? It seems fishy to me.

  • Marilyn

    I dont see much point to it. As a candidate, I’d probably have to keep looking anyway, especially as there’s no guarantee the job would still be there in a year/whatever timeframe.

  • Cindi

    I can’t see how this would work. It seems pretty silly to me.

  • Jeanette

    I think it’s an excellent idea. While risk is always involved in any job offer (an applicant can accept your job and still take another shortly after onboarding), this would work wonderfully well for some. Take, for instance, someone who has been told their company is relocating in 1 to 2 years (just like mine!). I would absolutely say yes to an employer willing to hire me in 1 to 2 years. WOW! Where do I apply?

  • Lilly

    This would only work if the applicant is actually employed somewhere else in the mean time; or as suggested by the article, they want to do volunteer work or vacation, etc. while they wait. That especially applies to the ‘without pay’ offer.
    My only thought about why a business would do this is that they’re assuming that a desperate applicant (like nearly all in the unemployed pool) is not as valuable or desireable as the others. I’m sure this works for certain desireable companies where an applicant has to fight their way onto the payroll roster (like famous financial/accounting, law, entertainment, or design firms, etc).
    It’s not the norm for the average EE, though. (chuckle)