How can these possibly be valid contracts if the employee isn’t aware of them? By that logic, the employee could make up their own “contract” that says the company owes them double.
It makes sense that an employer wouldn’t want to invest in significant training just to have the employee turn around and leverage it into a new job, but that could be clearly stated and agreed to up front, with the employee knowing what the agreed upon term is before they are free and clear. I’ve received retention bonuses in the past, which worked like this. They gave me a bonus, and if I left within 3 years, I had to pay it back. I had the option to not take it. The rub on that was that I think I would have had to pay back the gross value, not the net of what I received after tax. It never came to that though, I stayed the 3 years. I had to sign a similar contract when getting a relocation package.
duxup · 47m ago
I don't think the hidden training cost thing is new. It's not right ... but it's also not clear if it is on the rise either.
It makes sense that an employer wouldn’t want to invest in significant training just to have the employee turn around and leverage it into a new job, but that could be clearly stated and agreed to up front, with the employee knowing what the agreed upon term is before they are free and clear. I’ve received retention bonuses in the past, which worked like this. They gave me a bonus, and if I left within 3 years, I had to pay it back. I had the option to not take it. The rub on that was that I think I would have had to pay back the gross value, not the net of what I received after tax. It never came to that though, I stayed the 3 years. I had to sign a similar contract when getting a relocation package.