We have a 3 months probation period as well. But we practically never invoke it. Something has to be really truly egregious for that to happen. Again, it's all about investment. On-boarding and off-boarding a full time employee is a major overhead in most companies' business process flow chart. It's far more practical for us to invest another hour or 6 in interviewing, then multiple magnitude of effort more in on-boarding.

I think, to sibling poster's point, there's a massive difference in approach and reality to both company and employee in "hop on, maybe we'll fire you if it doesn't work" (probation), vs "hop on, maybe we'll hire you if it does work" (trial).

I for one am not at a point in my life where I'm even remotely interested in trial hire, either as hiring manager or an employee - FWIW, YMMV :)

Yes, there are often probationary periods with varying degrees of formality. But, in practice, these are mostly reserved for something going really wrong in the hiring process, e.g. someone not being able to do things that they said they knew well.

A trial period could be the same thing but it could also be "We usually extend permanent offers to about a third after the trial period." If it's a formality that may be one thing. If it's an extension of the interview process, that's something else.

In the U.S. that's called at will in most states. They can fire you for no reason as long as it's not one of the limited reason protected by the federal government. It doesn't matter how long you've worked there.

But they’re not using that’s a a substitute for interviewing, right?