4 ms·
It's not bluff. It's common to have claw back clauses on sign-on bonus or trainings, for a limited period (3 years might be too long though). The comment you r
by user5994461 5y ago
It's not bluff. It's common to have claw back clauses on sign-on bonus or trainings, for a limited period (3 years might be too long though).
The comment you reply to is giving really bad advice to ignore it. That sort of clause is valid and the company may or may not action it. You don't know.
What your friend should do is interview for other companies and mentions to the HR interview that she has to refund 10k if she leaves now, and ask whether they would be able to cover it. It's routine for companies to offer a sign-on bonus to cover this sort of things and you can expect the same claw back clause attached for one year.
Alternatively, if she has the money AND can get a job that pays significantly more, she can switch anyway, the worst that can happen is that she has to pay some money if the company asks.
- selimthegrim 5y agoThey are desperate down here with COVID, she can probably call their bluff and win.
- bastardoperator 5y agoNo one is arguing the commonality, it's the enforcement of these policies that are questionable. In a right to work state, these clauses are meaningless.