Hopefully this post is appropriate for this location and forum.

I'm debating quitting a lab tech position for a scientist position at a new company. They want to put me on a probationary period for 6 months, and I guess I'm ok with that, but it makes me wonder: Is it common to hire people to help establish a lab, only to let them go when they are through getting it established (procedures, etc.)? I'm just nervous quitting an established lab job for one just starting. I'm still new to science obviously, just wanted an opinion from people with relevant experience. My field is molecular biology if that matters. 

Didn't happen with me, but I work for the government, and it was a postdoc position, in physics. They started the process to hire me permanently soon after I started the temp position.

While it is a danger, I would think that if you do a decent job they'd want to retain you, since having open positions and training up new people has costs associated with it. Unless the job you are doing is specific to starting up a new lab, instead of working in the lab after it starts up. IOW, if they're paying you to tighten hose clamps, then yeah, they may not see value in keeping you around after the clamps are tightened. But if you're setting up equipment and as a result you are one of the one who knows how to run it, then they'd be foolish to let you go.

Probation is likely a way to evaluate your work behavior, without any entanglements associated with firing you. They just don't renew/offer you a permanent job. In our research group everyone hired has a one- or two-year evaluation period, where the bosses can decide not to retain you if things don't work out. I also know people who are contractors on annual contracts. As long as there is money to pay them and the work is of sufficient quality these people are retained, because it takes so long to hire new people.

 

 

 

 

 

I suspect that is difficult to predict and depends on what type of company it is (e.g. startup vs larger company). I will say that it is a bit unusual to a hire a new technician to establish a lab, usually that would be the job of the lab lead. I would probably take a close look at the contract and what stipulations might be in there. 

If you work out methods together with the lab lead (or equivalent) I'd be much less worried. As a technician your job is typically to continue running methods, and if you are trained to do things, it would be a waste to have to train someone else. The only scenario I can think of where it might make fiscal sense is to hire a PhD level expert to establish methods and then hire a cheaper technician (MSc, for example) to do the work. This is what sometimes happens in industrial Postdocs.