Honest question here: Why do the vast majority of people don't first quit their previous job, and then use the time to interview conveniently at many companies? That would allow this trial-week arrangement for most candidates, and that actually sounds better for the candidates too - they don't want to join the wrong (for them) company.
I know U.S. health insurance is based around the current employer - is that the reason? Or a meager one month of salary, which you can probably offset just by getting offers from more companies which will determine your salary probably for the next 2 years at least - if money is the reason.
Also, what happens if the candidate's contract with their employer says they can't do other work while they're employed there? What happens if the contract says - any IP you create, we own, unless we clear this in advance?
All in all, the trial-week arrangement sounds to me like it's better for all sides, assuming people are willing to first quit, then look for another job. A lot of people end up miserable at their jobs, so why doesn't everyone do it?
Quitting your existing job first increases the risk. What if you don't find another job? One month of meagre salary quickly turns into six months, then a year, and that becomes a lot of money. If you have a job that makes you miserable, it might even suggest that you do not have many prospects to choose from, which makes the risk even greater.
Recruiter here. Looking for a job while unemployed reduces your leverage and to at least some degree can potentially reduce how attractive you appear to an employer. If you have incredible skills it doesn't matter much, but having no job gives the appearance that no one wants you. If you quit your job without having another one lined up, that can give the impression that you make rash decisions that are perhaps not very wise.
It's best to have a job while looking for one, but depending on who you are it won't always be a huge detriment to be unemployed during a search.
I know U.S. health insurance is based around the current employer - is that the reason? Or a meager one month of salary, which you can probably offset just by getting offers from more companies which will determine your salary probably for the next 2 years at least - if money is the reason.
Also, what happens if the candidate's contract with their employer says they can't do other work while they're employed there? What happens if the contract says - any IP you create, we own, unless we clear this in advance?
All in all, the trial-week arrangement sounds to me like it's better for all sides, assuming people are willing to first quit, then look for another job. A lot of people end up miserable at their jobs, so why doesn't everyone do it?