> I've been a founder asking people to move before and I've always felt that it adds a significant extra responsibility.

Exactly. If you ask people to do things outside the normal employment environment then you are partly responsible to make them whole if thing do not work out.

And if you can't do that then don't get people to move halfway across the continent for you, especially not without doing more work to see if there is a good fit or not.

If I was hiring developers, I wouldn't care much where they come from - if someone from Sweden wants to come to Portugal, I wouldn't stop them, but on the other hand I wouldn't give them extra assistance/benefits just because they're relocating (assuming that (1) there was enough local talent available, and (2) the company was a startup, not an established company with loads of cash).

On the other hand, if I was hiring developers, I would stick to the contract.

Moving across continents to work for a company which you're not sure it'll work well with them is a too big risk to take to be honest.

I'm a founder of a startup and I would only move someone across the continents after working with him for a while. For example I would fly him over for a month to work for us to see if there's a fit (without asking him to leave everything yet), covering his expenses, flights and anything other expense he would incur.

I understand if the startup is paying for relocating you but you're still taking a big risk, there's always the chance that you would be let go if you're not a good fit.

How other are mitigating this risk? Is working remotely for a couple of weeks/months with occasional flying viable and moving only after you spent some time with the company viable for others here?

That is why I said I wasn't interested in moving to my current company unless I had some sort of guarantee about being able to find a new job, since it would be horrible if I got dropped a month later.

They said I would be able to stick around for a few months until I found another job, which they would be sure I would be able to find very quickly in SV. Now I've been working with them for 3 years.

The details were actually written down, so it wasn't an informal contract, but it's been 3 years.

Also remote trial work should be an option for these kinds of workers. Making your company remote worker compatible will force many best practices from the start at your company.

How many people are realistically willing to do a trial for a month? Developers are in demand. They likely already have a job.

That's a legit question and I don't know the answer. However how is it different from hiring someone and letting him go after a month if you think he's not a good fit? The mention of a month of bootcamp or "orientation" is mainly to set expectations.

You should always hire the best candidate which you think will work out but that month allow you to set the right phase, this is a month where you both give the best to make that relationship work - orientation, pairing, documentation, short meetings to discuss potential roadblocks or issues.

All startups usually do this - I just consider it's a good practice to say it out loud that there's a period where we both find out if we want to keep working together.

Depends on where you are. Developers are in demand in major US tech hubs (read: SFBay, NYC, Seattle, Austin), they are not nearly as hotly fought over everywhere else, particularly in Europe and Asia.

It's important to remember that the "companies prostrating themselves at your front door offering you bonuses and perks and lavishing dining you" is an American Tech Hub phenomenon. While I doubt UK coders are doing badly, I doubt they are as in-demand as they would be in SF or NYC.

I still think that this is very limiting. I'm in Canada (Waterloo, Ontario) and I just can't see trying out at a company for a month.

That said, I'm "old" (36), and have family responsibilities. If I were a naive recent grad I might have entertained doing this.

I went to Waterloo and still have friends there - the job market may be pretty good for Canada, but it's a far, far cry from what you'd see in an American tech hub.

Trying out at a company for a month isn't really that bad when the demand is so intense you can literally line up 3-4 competing offers in under a week if things don't work out. There is sadly no place in Canada where the demand is that high.

As a company founder, I have never had someone move to take a job at my company. The reasons are #1, it is a lot more expensive to hire because most people want you to cover moving costs, and #2, if the person doesn't work out during the three months probationary period (this is standard in Ontario, Canada) I would be screwing them over if I laid them off (and if I didn't lay them off, it would be screwing over the company.)

If we had more robust hiring practices, and more money, maybe it would be better. But for now hiring out of town while requiring them to move (as opposed to working remotely, which has worked for employees) is horribly risky for all involved.

Have you considered having remote employees?

Exactly! It's just a bit of common sense mixed with having some managerial balls and take responsibility of when it was your mistake to hire someone or not. The worst part is the contract agreement, he should really follow through with the process and see what he can get, odds are in his favor, and at this point there doesn't seem to be much more he can lose. The whole 'we will end your career' part sounds like a baby mobster threat to me.