3 ms·

> Although critics question the legality of TRAPs, a legal analysis published last year found that courts generally uphold the agreements in challenges brought

> Although critics question the legality of TRAPs, a legal analysis published last year found that courts generally uphold the agreements in challenges brought under anti-kickback provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the law establishing a federal minimum wage. > In 2000, the study noted, a federal judge in Manhattan nullified one employment agreement in the financial services industry, ruling that the language of the contract “approaches indentured servitude.” The general picture seems to be: this situation is mostly compatible with how the rule makers want it to be, is in no way accidental, and will be upheld upon challenge in most cases. Some people will have the decency to not go with the grain, but they are few, and represent the exception more than the rule.

Spooky23 4y ago
I think these things make sense where intended. My last employer will pay for a graduate education - you’d get a decent MBA or other degree and pay nothing. They’d even give you time off for certain things. In exchange, they wanted a 30 month commitment post graduation. I think that’s fair and very much employee driven. The problem is when you apply this to unskilled labor. “Training” someone at Petsmart in how to wash and trim a Labrador retriever is a basic task and nobody should be on the hook for that.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Exactly. Pursuing a graduate degree is optional (outside of select professionals - lawyers, doctors, prof engineers). You can attend graduate school outside the scope of employment (on your own dime). The market for graduate programs is competitive. And the degree retains its value beyond the immediate job placement. PetSmart should be required to prove that its training program provides actual, long-term value to the employee if they want to claw back the money spent on training. In my mind, the program would need to result in a legitimate industry certification for that to be true... As is the case for some skilled trades, where you complete an apprenticeship or other training and earn membership in the trade union. Or trucking, railway engineering, or commercial pilots.

Spooky23 4y ago

I think these things make sense where intended. My last employer will pay for a graduate education - you’d get a decent MBA or other degree and pay nothing. They’d even give you time off for certain things. In exchange, they wanted a 30 month commitment post graduation. I think that’s fair and very much employee driven. The problem is when you apply this to unskilled labor. “Training” someone at Petsmart in how to wash and trim a Labrador retriever is a basic task and nobody should be on the hook for that.

alistairSH 4y ago
Exactly. Pursuing a graduate degree is optional (outside of select professionals - lawyers, doctors, prof engineers). You can attend graduate school outside the scope of employment (on your own dime). The market for graduate programs is competitive. And the degree retains its value beyond the immediate job placement. PetSmart should be required to prove that its training program provides actual, long-term value to the employee if they want to claw back the money spent on training. In my mind, the program would need to result in a legitimate industry certification for that to be true... As is the case for some skilled trades, where you complete an apprenticeship or other training and earn membership in the trade union. Or trucking, railway engineering, or commercial pilots.