2 ms·

Just as another perspective here: I've also seen employees fighting to avoid paying back optional signing bonus that were given under the condition of staying

Just as another perspective here: I've also seen employees fighting to avoid paying back optional signing bonus that were given under the condition of staying for a couple of years...not attached to training at all. It's difficult to separate "I don't think I should have to pay back anything, period" from "I don't think I should have to pay for training". The training case can be made sure, but when somebody accepts some form of benefit with the explicit terms: if you leave before X you have to pay it back, I don't see the issue if the terms were clear. EDIT: Now I'm curious about the down votes? Where is the issue with an expectation that people follow through with signed agreements?

OkayPhysicist 4y ago
The "issue with an expectation that people follow through with signed agreements" comes about when there is a power asymmetry between the two parties signing a contract. The reason we have tenant rights, and bans on indentured servitude, and employee rights is because when there is a power imbalance between the two parties the less powerful can often find themselves pushed into extremely unfavorable circumstances, to the point that it has societal-level negative effects. So we ban certain kinds of one-sided contractual clauses. And then corporations include them anyway, because they calculate that there's a non-zero chance that individuals will abide them regardless of their legality. The number of completely unenforceable non-compete clauses I've seen in California is astonishing. Likewise, I've seen blatantly illegal lease agreements. The common factor? One party has far more negotiating power than the other.
- brightball 4y ago
  Signing bonuses though? Here's an extra 5-10% of your first year's salary (optional) if you commit to hanging around for 2 years. I don't see the asymmetry there?

OkayPhysicist 4y ago

The "issue with an expectation that people follow through with signed agreements" comes about when there is a power asymmetry between the two parties signing a contract. The reason we have tenant rights, and bans on indentured servitude, and employee rights is because when there is a power imbalance between the two parties the less powerful can often find themselves pushed into extremely unfavorable circumstances, to the point that it has societal-level negative effects. So we ban certain kinds of one-sided contractual clauses. And then corporations include them anyway, because they calculate that there's a non-zero chance that individuals will abide them regardless of their legality. The number of completely unenforceable non-compete clauses I've seen in California is astonishing. Likewise, I've seen blatantly illegal lease agreements. The common factor? One party has far more negotiating power than the other.

brightball 4y ago
Signing bonuses though? Here's an extra 5-10% of your first year's salary (optional) if you commit to hanging around for 2 years. I don't see the asymmetry there?