I have been pondering the subject of the "Guarantee Period" for the past couple of months. I've decided to reach out to the virtual world for some advice.
Here is a little backstory on my thoughts:
In the past I have used a contract for Direct Hire Placements with a '90 Day Guarantee'.
I have since changed that 90 Day to a '30 Day Guarantee' and here is why:
For the most part, if a candidate 'falls out' within the first 30 days, it is for a reason that is within my control. Received an offer from a company they were interviewing with at the same time they accepted this offer. They got in the job and realized it was not what they expected. They relocated and got home sick... etc...
A departure that happens after the first 30 days of employment are most often retention issues and therefore it is outside of my control. Hence the reason I changed the contract.
I am curious to hear your thoughts on this subject!
When we offer a guarantee period, it is for 90 days usually. And it is replacement, not refund. There is not much I would consider being in my control, really. Heck, even as a hiring manager it wasn't in my control! The reason we have any sort of guarantee period is to relieve some of the financial risk for the client and goodwill. Not due to any feeling of fault.
I concur with Amber. Though you have a statistically valid point about a 30-day guarantee, a more common 90-day guarantee period is, for the most part, a feel-good thing for clients. They need to feel protected and anything less is a tough 'sell'. We offer a sliding scale 90-day guarantee but it is still open for adjustment when a client is in good communication with us if there are issues within the guarantee period. In most cases we too offer a replacement rather than refunding $. Fortunately, in my 20 years of recruiting this has been a very rare problem.