6 ms·
Training repayment agreements trap employees in their jobs
- gnicholas 3y ago> “They’re just becoming ubiquitous,” she said, “as people are trying to find creative ways to move around noncompete restrictions,” which are gaining traction at the state and federal levels. Interesting to see how companies adapted to the changes in noncompete laws. What will be the next fallback position? > The Federal Trade Commission has proposed a rule that would ban most noncompete clauses, including many T.R.A.s. In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released the findings of a yearlong study on employer-driven debt, saying it “poses the risk of suppressing wages and forcing workers to stay in jobs they do not want” and that “trainings may have greatly inflated valuations.” Inflated values should not be used, but does that taint all TRAs? If they are outlawed, how will that change the hiring practices of companies that train new hires in-house?
- 6502nerdface 3y ago> Interesting to see how companies adapted to the changes in noncompete laws. What will be the next fallback position? a friend of mine just left a quantitative hedge fund recently that, in anxious anticipation of noncompetes possibly being banned in new york, asked all of its employees to sign new "nonassociation agreements" as a fallback... these basically say you're not allowed to work with your current colleagues at future employers... which is arguably more draconian than a noncompete... it would be ironic if this became the replacement. [edited for punctuation]
- londonReed 3y agoYou can just say Square Point...
- gnicholas 3y agoAnd here I was thinking that I wasn't the only one having trouble with iOS17's new autocorrect capitalization algorithm...
- matheusmoreira 3y agoPlease tell me they didn't actually sign that.
- adhesive_wombat 3y agoIf a non-compete isn't enforceable, how is it enforceable to control what two people, both of whom no longer have an employment contract with the old employer, do?
- steveBK123 3y agoThe only good thing I can say about this disgusting cash grab by business is they are asking such a ludicrous amount that people have no choice but to lawyer up. $30k in "training costs" for a 2 week program leading into a $35k/year job? $38k in "training costs" + $100k in "loss of business because we have to find a replacement" for a job that pays $200k average, and far less for starters, is insane. If they just tried to hit people up for $10k or something, some might actually suck it up and move on.
- GoToRO 3y agoAre the employees to blame that the company overpaid? That's what I would ask.
- djbusby 3y agoNo.
- dylan604 3y agoInsurance companies already use this line when they refuse to pay off a note with value vs financing owed payments. They flat out say "we are not responsible for bad financial decisions of the insured".
- steveBK123 3y agoNo the employees are not, and the practice should generally be illegal or at worst, extremely rare.
- dylan604 3y agoMust be one helluva boot camp for that kind of price. You could almost get tuition for a single semester class at a college for those prices.
- MilStdJunkie 3y agoThis has been a huge scam with contracting agencies, to the point I've had to reject some offers because the firm had a history of this. The stinky part is that it's entirely out of your control. Say BigCorp hires WorkCo to staff up 30 positions with LevelIV skill. WorkCo grabs a bunch of people it thinks are LevelIII, sends them out an Official Uptrain Packet[1] to get them to LevelIV. Then BigCorp decides, eh, nah, we'll staff it internally - they pay the penalty to WorkCo and go on their way. Then WorkCo ditches the new hires, charges them for the LevelIV upskill package they sent out. You'll note that there is zero downside risk for WorkCo here. How much do they charge? Haha, no one knows. None of these skill levels are documented consistently per-company - the GSO has rules, but they're circumvented constantly with all sorts of horseshit adjustments. [1] Who certifies these is a VERY interesting thing indeed
- downrightmike 3y agoGoogle isn't finding anything relevant for your [1]
- MilStdJunkie 3y agoWithout risking poisoning the well against a powerful organization that more or less shapes my industry, it rhymes with "Thai Escrow'". The cert business has gotten extremely hinky last decade or so, with an explosion of "print your own spec" services, that give you a paper trail to rack up charges, like with these bogus *#$! training packages that get sent out. Hold up a sec. How do these certs stay active? Weeeelllll . . that's linked to how Thai Escrow governance works. It's pretty bad. W3C seems like a hothouse of benevolence in comparison.
- ignoramous 3y agohttps://archive.is/ljAKC https://archive.is/ljAKC
- OrderlyTiamat 3y agoIs there an alternative? I'm getting captcha loops on archive.is, and the DNS issue is frankly embarrassing. Is anyone else providing the same service?
- ignoramous 3y ago> Is there an alternative? Plenty; here's one: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/kSTlN https://ghostarchive.org/archive/kSTlN
- Karsteski 3y agoThis link is currently broken for whatever reason
- bombcar 3y agoIf you’re on cloudflare dns try with another dns provider.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- havershank 3y ago[dead]
- BrandoElFollito 3y agoThis is not possible in France, by law. While I love our labor law (with all is atrocities as well), this is one of these points I would challenge. When you invest Xk€ in specialized trying just to have someone quit right after that it is quite annoying. This is money which build have gone into training for other members of the team that stay. Having this money paid back by the company that hires them could be a solution (with plenty of issues of is own)
- ivan_gammel 3y agoIf training is voluntary and pay back in case of termination by employee is agreed in the contract, sure. Otherwise there's no reason why a company is ok to accept the risk of money loss due to the employee being hit by a bus, but not ok to accept the risk of failure to retain that person.
- diogenes4 3y ago> If training is voluntary and pay back in case of termination by employee is agreed in the contract, sure. It's insane how willing american culture is to waive what should be rights if they're signed away. Really, the primary right available to you is the right to be railroaded by contract.
- constantly 3y agoYou’re not living up to your moniker’s namesake with this comment. As a general matter, people in fact should have enough agency to be able to evaluate a situation and decide to sign away certain protections. There are many exceptions to this, but signing away one’s ability to freely leave a job without consequence in exchange for upskilling at their employer’s expense falls squarely into the principle above.
- fzeroracer 3y agoThe funny thing is, we know the outcome of your line of thinking. Eventually it becomes normalized and part of every contract. That's why we had to stamp out non-competes because otherwise companies would gladly collude to make it so there is no choice.
- nine_zeros 3y agoWhatever happened to at-will employment? That can't be only valid when they want to fire/lay-off.
- patja 3y agoPerot Systems (later became EDS) was famous for this in the 80s with their college hires.
- bmitc 3y agoI can't read this particular article, but in general, it is striking on how companies often view training their employees, either via external or internal means, as some great burden that is thrust unfairly upon them. Given such a situation, it isn't surprising that employment has become a lot more transactional and short-term. At least, this seems like a major component. There seems to be a general unwillingness, from both parties of employer and employee, to invest in the other beyond superficial means. It would be my guess though that this particular dynamic was initiated by corporations though, by reducing interest in training, placing pressure on universities to train entry-level employees for them, and reducing other long-term investments such as pensions.
- pylua 3y agoThere are very few rules and regulations that enforce or promote an employers ability to invest in their worker. The rules and regulations that do exist are pathetic, starting with the laughable minimum wage. Not to mention other rules are completely abused to make workers work more hours and to not be adequately paid, such as exempt employees whose salary hovers around that minimum level. Companies also outsource and offshore in seconds. They do not even invest in the country anymore. Even though legally these items are not unjust enrichment I fail to see why morally it cannot be construed as so. Let’s get real about which side is exploiting the other.
- Veserv 3y agoIf a company is giving you “50 K$” of training and you are “paying it back” through your work over 5 years then you are actually getting paid 10 K$ more and the company is withholding the amount from your paycheck like how you might elect to directly pay into a 401(k). So, logically, at the end of the 5 year period you should be getting a 10 K$ raise since you no longer need to withhold for training costs, right? The problem with these job training payment schemes is not that they are immoral on their face, it is that they are accounting and financial nonsense. If you want to be a welder, that requires training. If you do not have enough money, you can get a loan. If you want to reduce the risk, you can work at a company that will guarantee you a job for a period of time if you complete the training. If you want to spend the money on things other than paying down the loan, then you can do that. Money is fungible and personal, training should also be fungible and personal. That is at least sane model. You may also disagree with that as well, and you are welcome to do so, but the real abomination here is shackles made of fake loans paid with fake money.
- paulddraper 3y ago> So, logically, at the end of the 5 year period you should be getting a 10 K$ raise since you no longer need to withhold for training costs, right? Sure. I suspect that happens.
- zeroCalories 3y agoYou wouldn't get the raise because your pay isn't dictated by how much money you make for a company, but by supply and demand.
- Veserv 3y agoYou have incurred a 50 K$ debt to the company. Where are you getting the income to pay it? Are you claiming a company can just expunge employee debt willy-nilly? Then instead of a paycheck I can just take a loan from my employer that they expunge avoiding all income taxes. No, that is not how it works. A entity can not magic a loan into existence and then back out. You are being paid 10 K$ more. Your salary or hourly wage should reflect that. Maybe they might choose to dock your pay or fire you after you “pay off” the debt since the “training” is actually just a shackle of no independent merit (e.g. they give you a 50 K$ salary, but claim a 10 M$ training loan over 5 years so you are on the hook for 2 M$ per year you quit early). That should probably be dealt with via false advertising laws around training programs and laws around loans. They would also be required to disclose that you are explicitly taking on a 10 M$ personal loan for that job which would almost certainly scare people away. Also probably super duper illegal. I do not think the courts would take too kindly to gigantic loans for fake training.
- eh_why_not 3y ago> “They’re just becoming ubiquitous,” she said, “as people are trying to find creative ways to move around noncompete restrictions,” which are gaining traction at the state and federal levels. It's crazy how much power asymmetry exists between corporations and individuals nowadays. From forced arbitration (even for basic things like rent contracts) to non-competes, to now TRAs... > But regulators have begun to take action on the legality of T.R.A.s. In the last year, the Biden administration has moved to limit the agreements. Good to know. But solving problems at the executive level, without codifying the solution into law, makes it temporary and up for grabs by the next election, you know, for those jonesing for "less regulation".
- Yeul 3y agoAh indentured servitude. We're running backwards into the 19th century. Unions aren't perfect but they care more about you than some capitalists.