3 ms·

How can you be charged for training that your employer made you go through?

stevenwoo 3y ago
One example off top of my head is trucking. The company can say no experience required but you have to pay for training and training materials. It works out that one employee can barely support oneself in such a business arrangement and one is beholden to the company and there can be financial penalties for quitting early. It got such a bad rap there was a Planet money podcast about it https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/901110994/big-rigged https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/901110994/big-rigged
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs). It's the hot new thing. Tell someone they're hired, insert a harmless looking little clause[1], have 'em sign the paperwork, send 'em a training packet, then WHOOPSIE the client didn't need you after all and you owe us 30,000 smackaroonies. Honestly, since the job seeker is explicitly prohibited from contacting the client independently, I'm amazed that this isn't a more common con. Like, why not just ditch the idea of having a client at all, and just prey on the job seekers? Probably because that's a little more on the "definitely illegal" side, because you have to lie about a client needing headcount[2]. What you can do, completely legally, is overhire on a client whim, since overhiring literally makes you money. [1] "Oh this? It's industry standard for the client. Just a government thing. Look, here's our Official Certification. Everyone signs it." [2] EDIT or, as a dedicated scammer, you could have a fake client too. Make it sound really official. "LEGACY AERO", "LONG RADIO CORPORATION", "OLD-TIMEY TOTALLY AMERICAN-SPEAKING TRUCKING COMPANY". Or make it sound religious! Be ready for lawyers with an actual business-looking fake client that's . . awww . . just on Hard Times. Also, be a worthless piece of human-shaped filth. That's the first prerequisite.
- em-bee 3y ago
  if a company terminates the employee then any repay clauses should become void. that's the case in germany for example. repay clauses only trigger if the employee quits without cause.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
em-bee 3y ago
it is reasonable to charge for training, or require to work for some time if the training allows you to get a higher paying job. but the cost of the training, and the time that you need to stay in the job afterwards need to be reasonable too. for example in germany, a 3-month training allows a 2 year binding to the job. repay clauses only trigger if the employee quits voluntarily and doesn't have a strong reason to quit. i couldn't find anything about the cost of the training, but i guess this should be industry average. pilot training is expensive everywhere, and medical training can be too i guess. but i would expect the training should allow you to demand a salary high enough to pay it off in a reasonable time. the first example in the article is clearly demanding to much. as is mentioned further down, $20,000 is the average cost, which for a two year binding would mean the cost/repay-value is about $830 per month. still seems high, but if the training allows you to demand that much more for your salary then it would be ok.
- Veserv 3y ago
  20 K$ of training with a two-year binding to pay it back is structurally a 20 K$ loan with a two year term and a clause demanding instant repayment of the entire principal in full if you quit. If the company is actually giving you 20 K$ worth of training and they just want you to pay off the debt then that can just be a regular two year loan. If you quit you still need to pay, but on the normal payment cycle. These repayment clauses are loans with extra employee unfriendly steps. Even bankers do not write loans like this for regular people. And when you need to learn a thing or two from bankers about financial ethics, you have made a grave mistake.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    right, the instant repayment is wrong. i couldn't find much about that for germany in comparison. only one source mentioned a case where a court granted the employee the right to repay in installments.

One example off top of my head is trucking. The company can say no experience required but you have to pay for training and training materials. It works out that one employee can barely support oneself in such a business arrangement and one is beholden to the company and there can be financial penalties for quitting early. It got such a bad rap there was a Planet money podcast about it https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/901110994/big-rigged https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/901110994/big-rigged

MilStdJunkie 3y ago

Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs). It's the hot new thing. Tell someone they're hired, insert a harmless looking little clause[1], have 'em sign the paperwork, send 'em a training packet, then WHOOPSIE the client didn't need you after all and you owe us 30,000 smackaroonies. Honestly, since the job seeker is explicitly prohibited from contacting the client independently, I'm amazed that this isn't a more common con. Like, why not just ditch the idea of having a client at all, and just prey on the job seekers? Probably because that's a little more on the "definitely illegal" side, because you have to lie about a client needing headcount[2]. What you can do, completely legally, is overhire on a client whim, since overhiring literally makes you money. [1] "Oh this? It's industry standard for the client. Just a government thing. Look, here's our Official Certification. Everyone signs it." [2] EDIT or, as a dedicated scammer, you could have a fake client too. Make it sound really official. "LEGACY AERO", "LONG RADIO CORPORATION", "OLD-TIMEY TOTALLY AMERICAN-SPEAKING TRUCKING COMPANY". Or make it sound religious! Be ready for lawyers with an actual business-looking fake client that's . . awww . . just on Hard Times. Also, be a worthless piece of human-shaped filth. That's the first prerequisite.

em-bee 3y ago
if a company terminates the employee then any repay clauses should become void. that's the case in germany for example. repay clauses only trigger if the employee quits without cause.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

em-bee 3y ago

it is reasonable to charge for training, or require to work for some time if the training allows you to get a higher paying job. but the cost of the training, and the time that you need to stay in the job afterwards need to be reasonable too. for example in germany, a 3-month training allows a 2 year binding to the job. repay clauses only trigger if the employee quits voluntarily and doesn't have a strong reason to quit. i couldn't find anything about the cost of the training, but i guess this should be industry average. pilot training is expensive everywhere, and medical training can be too i guess. but i would expect the training should allow you to demand a salary high enough to pay it off in a reasonable time. the first example in the article is clearly demanding to much. as is mentioned further down, $20,000 is the average cost, which for a two year binding would mean the cost/repay-value is about $830 per month. still seems high, but if the training allows you to demand that much more for your salary then it would be ok.

Veserv 3y ago
20 K$ of training with a two-year binding to pay it back is structurally a 20 K$ loan with a two year term and a clause demanding instant repayment of the entire principal in full if you quit. If the company is actually giving you 20 K$ worth of training and they just want you to pay off the debt then that can just be a regular two year loan. If you quit you still need to pay, but on the normal payment cycle. These repayment clauses are loans with extra employee unfriendly steps. Even bankers do not write loans like this for regular people. And when you need to learn a thing or two from bankers about financial ethics, you have made a grave mistake.
- em-bee 3y ago
  right, the instant repayment is wrong. i couldn't find much about that for germany in comparison. only one source mentioned a case where a court granted the employee the right to repay in installments.