3 ms·
It would be one thing if the clawback is at least fairly itemized and clearly stated up front. What's appalling about these stories is that the dollar amount is
by thr0wawayf00 4y ago
It would be one thing if the clawback is at least fairly itemized and clearly stated up front. What's appalling about these stories is that the dollar amount is completely arbitrary and determined after the employee signs on.
I passed on a job opportunity early on in my career because there was a clawback provision in my employment agreement that was very transparent and yet very brutal. I couldn't imagine taking that job and being entrapped by that clawback provision after I'd started.
- mcv 4y agoI think this sort of clawback can indeed be acceptable as long as it's completely clear what you're getting involved in, is properly itemized in a way that represents the real costs, and it only hold for a limited period that's proportional to the actual costs. My first employer told me how they once paid a very expensive (6 figure) training for someone who immediately left after finishing that training, so they introduced a clawback to prevent that in the future. I think that's reasonable, but there needs to be a balance. You shouldn't be able to lock people into shitty jobs for years just because they got some shitty training when they joined.
- julian_t 4y agoI once failed a job interview because they said that they thought I'd take the extensive training and then leave for a better paid job. TBF they were completely correct, but it was a bit of a surprise.