6 ms·

In America it would be banned by the Thirteenth Amendment.

btilly 16y ago
Really? I know a number of people who got advanced degrees (eg MDs) paid for by the military. The terms say that if you work for the military for a certain period after graduation, your tuition is paid in full. If you don't, then you owe your tuition. Either way you have an MD. (I know people who have gone both ways on that.) That sounds very similar to this situation. And I've never heard of any legal objections to the arrangement.
- henrikschroder 16y ago
  But that tuition is unrelated to your military work, and it's a contract you enter beforehand where the tuition costs is essentially a bonus. In the grandparent case the company decided to train him in whatever, and after the fact used that training to guilt him into staying.
  - btilly 16y ago
    But that tuition is unrelated to your military work... Not so! When the military does this with MDs, they expect them to work, for the military, as that kind of MD. Therefore the tuition is being paid so that you can do the job you were hired for. The parallel is very good. The military wants to hire you. They want you to do a job you don't have skills to do. While employed by the military you undergo training that is approved by the military. If you serve the military long enough, they will pay off that training, else you are liable for the cost of the training. The important differences are that in the military case the training is received at an organization that is clearly separate from the military, the degree received is generally recognized as being very valuable, and the candidate has input into what kind of training they wish (within limits) to receive. For a similar example, lots of private companies provide employer tuition reimbursement as a benefit. For instance they may pay for an employee's MBA, with the condition that the employee work for the employer for a fixed period of time. And typically companies that do this try to use the employees in ways that match the skills the employee is gaining. This is both legal and common in the USA.
    - Psyonic 16y ago
      I agree that the situations are similar, but like you said, the fact that the training you are receiving has a market-value outside the company and is worthwhile elsewhere does make a difference. The biggest difference, though, seems to be the clarity. In the military, the terms are very clearly spelled out up-front. If his situation is the same, I can't say I feel terribly bad for him, but if they were "fuzzy", which is how it sounds, its definitely shady behavior.

Really? I know a number of people who got advanced degrees (eg MDs) paid for by the military. The terms say that if you work for the military for a certain period after graduation, your tuition is paid in full. If you don't, then you owe your tuition. Either way you have an MD. (I know people who have gone both ways on that.) That sounds very similar to this situation. And I've never heard of any legal objections to the arrangement.

henrikschroder 16y ago
But that tuition is unrelated to your military work, and it's a contract you enter beforehand where the tuition costs is essentially a bonus. In the grandparent case the company decided to train him in whatever, and after the fact used that training to guilt him into staying.
- btilly 16y ago
  But that tuition is unrelated to your military work... Not so! When the military does this with MDs, they expect them to work, for the military, as that kind of MD. Therefore the tuition is being paid so that you can do the job you were hired for. The parallel is very good. The military wants to hire you. They want you to do a job you don't have skills to do. While employed by the military you undergo training that is approved by the military. If you serve the military long enough, they will pay off that training, else you are liable for the cost of the training. The important differences are that in the military case the training is received at an organization that is clearly separate from the military, the degree received is generally recognized as being very valuable, and the candidate has input into what kind of training they wish (within limits) to receive. For a similar example, lots of private companies provide employer tuition reimbursement as a benefit. For instance they may pay for an employee's MBA, with the condition that the employee work for the employer for a fixed period of time. And typically companies that do this try to use the employees in ways that match the skills the employee is gaining. This is both legal and common in the USA.
  - Psyonic 16y ago
    I agree that the situations are similar, but like you said, the fact that the training you are receiving has a market-value outside the company and is worthwhile elsewhere does make a difference. The biggest difference, though, seems to be the clarity. In the military, the terms are very clearly spelled out up-front. If his situation is the same, I can't say I feel terribly bad for him, but if they were "fuzzy", which is how it sounds, its definitely shady behavior.