3 ms·
The difference is Kim chose to go to Lawschool so she could become a lawyer, and the firm that hired her was helping her pay off her debt as part of her compens
by DangitBobby 4y ago
The difference is Kim chose to go to Lawschool so she could become a lawyer, and the firm that hired her was helping her pay off her debt as part of her compensation. That situation is a little dystopian, but pretty different from what's happeming in the article. They are required by their work to get this training (so, employees are not choosing to do it) and sticking them with the bill.
- jmartrican 4y agoIt was required that Kim got her law degree if she wanted to move out of the mail room.
- rhino369 4y agoThat situation is pretty distinguishable from what happened in the article. A law degree's benefits mostly fall on Kim, it's not specific training for her job, it's a legal requirement for an attorney role, and it is fully usable in other attorney jobs. Most importantly, it's a truly optional deal to get Kim a promotion--not a requirement to keep the job you were already hired for. And most people pay for the degree themselves. That's not the same as a company specific trainings for people who are already licensed for the job. There is definitely some sort of gray area between education and on-the-job training, but Kim's case isn't in that area IMO.