5 ms·

This should be straight up illegal. No ifs, no buts.

Kon-Peki 4y ago
No, there are legitimate uses. But that's not what this article is about. It's about the abusive uses of the practice. And the abusive ones almost never survive a courtroom challenge. The employers are counting on the fact that the employee isn't going to quit, and if they do they'll capitulate to the threats. Because that's what usually happens.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Which is why things like this need to have incredible punitive damages attached to doing it, so that lawyers will be trawling to find cases and bring them on contingency.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Does anything stop employers from combining this with mandatory arbitration clauses?
- em-bee 4y ago
  asking out of genuine interest, because i simply don't know. what are legitimate uses of requiring an employee to pay back training costs? the only thing i can think of is if the training is entirely optional, and not a requirement for the job or a requirement to get a promotion. seems to me that it would be pretty easy to make charging for required training illegal, and only allow charging for it if it is truly optional
  - hklgny 4y ago
    Some companies do it for expensive training that COULD otherwise be purchased by the employee but they choose to go this route instead. medical field, pilots and law are common examples. In those cases, it can be a good deal if you land in a good company - you get a paycheck and a free education that increases your earning potential for the rest of your career. The article is not about those situations though.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      ok, the pilot example mentioned elsewhere is a good one i think, but i still don't think it is fair to just put the employee in debt, and i think a ban on the practice could help to resolve the problem in other ways. for example, if pilot training costs $100,000, and a pilot is expected to stay for 5 years, then essentially each year pays off $20,000. if a pilot quits before the training is paid off, then how about an industry agreement that the new employer continues the payment? so basically, if an airline doesn't want to pay for the training, they can only hire pilots that have the training already paid off. if they want to hire someone fresher, they will simply have to take that into account. it's almost like paying for insurance. the only difference is that this only has to be paid until the full cost is paid off. and if the pilot doesn't find a new job or changes industries, then that's just a risk the employer has to take. in germany the practice appears to be that the cost for the training is deducted from you salary like you pay back a loan. i see no problem there to transfer that loan to a new job, because that's simply what it is. you just continue paying. if an employer decided to gift that loan to you they can do the same, while you work there the employer pays back the loan without deducting it from your salary. if you switch jobs, the new employer can continue paying the loan, or not. but in either case you know from the beginning that there is a loan to be paid, and the payback terms are reasonable.
      - hklgny 4y ago
        You may be right - but does not seem like you were just asking out of genuine interest :) You're making your own value judgements in your response which is fine. It just means you may not opt for it if you were in that situation. If both parties are qualified to evaluate the offer and make a decision to move forward, then I don't see what's wrong with it. Cases like I mentioned are closer to a private loan, which in America is often the only other way you could get the education you're looking for. In those cases, it can often make sense to move forward with an employer paid option instead. The article, however, was about much more predatory ways of manipulating employees into staying to pay back poor on-job training closer related to typical employee onboarding than industry-wide training. I think we can all agree that's awful.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Many employers require college degrees for jobs that don't really require an education. They just want people that they know can graduate from college. A paid back training program might lead to them hiring high school grads and then getting the incompetent ones to pay them back which would provide increased opportunities for the competent high school grads.
randomdata 4y ago
No chance lawmakers would threaten colleges like that. It is their entire business model: 1. Convince employers to require college degrees 2. Expect employees to assume the cost of attaining a degree 3. Employers offset cost only when the employee sticks around 4. Employee eats the cost if they choose to no longer work for said employers

No, there are legitimate uses. But that's not what this article is about. It's about the abusive uses of the practice. And the abusive ones almost never survive a courtroom challenge. The employers are counting on the fact that the employee isn't going to quit, and if they do they'll capitulate to the threats. Because that's what usually happens.

bombcar 4y ago
Which is why things like this need to have incredible punitive damages attached to doing it, so that lawyers will be trawling to find cases and bring them on contingency.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Does anything stop employers from combining this with mandatory arbitration clauses?
em-bee 4y ago
asking out of genuine interest, because i simply don't know. what are legitimate uses of requiring an employee to pay back training costs? the only thing i can think of is if the training is entirely optional, and not a requirement for the job or a requirement to get a promotion. seems to me that it would be pretty easy to make charging for required training illegal, and only allow charging for it if it is truly optional
- hklgny 4y ago
  Some companies do it for expensive training that COULD otherwise be purchased by the employee but they choose to go this route instead. medical field, pilots and law are common examples. In those cases, it can be a good deal if you land in a good company - you get a paycheck and a free education that increases your earning potential for the rest of your career. The article is not about those situations though.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    ok, the pilot example mentioned elsewhere is a good one i think, but i still don't think it is fair to just put the employee in debt, and i think a ban on the practice could help to resolve the problem in other ways. for example, if pilot training costs $100,000, and a pilot is expected to stay for 5 years, then essentially each year pays off $20,000. if a pilot quits before the training is paid off, then how about an industry agreement that the new employer continues the payment? so basically, if an airline doesn't want to pay for the training, they can only hire pilots that have the training already paid off. if they want to hire someone fresher, they will simply have to take that into account. it's almost like paying for insurance. the only difference is that this only has to be paid until the full cost is paid off. and if the pilot doesn't find a new job or changes industries, then that's just a risk the employer has to take. in germany the practice appears to be that the cost for the training is deducted from you salary like you pay back a loan. i see no problem there to transfer that loan to a new job, because that's simply what it is. you just continue paying. if an employer decided to gift that loan to you they can do the same, while you work there the employer pays back the loan without deducting it from your salary. if you switch jobs, the new employer can continue paying the loan, or not. but in either case you know from the beginning that there is a loan to be paid, and the payback terms are reasonable.
    - hklgny 4y ago
      You may be right - but does not seem like you were just asking out of genuine interest :) You're making your own value judgements in your response which is fine. It just means you may not opt for it if you were in that situation. If both parties are qualified to evaluate the offer and make a decision to move forward, then I don't see what's wrong with it. Cases like I mentioned are closer to a private loan, which in America is often the only other way you could get the education you're looking for. In those cases, it can often make sense to move forward with an employer paid option instead. The article, however, was about much more predatory ways of manipulating employees into staying to pay back poor on-job training closer related to typical employee onboarding than industry-wide training. I think we can all agree that's awful.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Many employers require college degrees for jobs that don't really require an education. They just want people that they know can graduate from college. A paid back training program might lead to them hiring high school grads and then getting the incompetent ones to pay them back which would provide increased opportunities for the competent high school grads.

randomdata 4y ago

No chance lawmakers would threaten colleges like that. It is their entire business model: 1. Convince employers to require college degrees 2. Expect employees to assume the cost of attaining a degree 3. Employers offset cost only when the employee sticks around 4. Employee eats the cost if they choose to no longer work for said employers