Companies start charging for employee training
(archive.ph)
Comments (38)
sorted by:
Well, that's an accurate name. I get it, they don't want to invest money and not get anything out of it but that's just the risk they take.
How many people have moved or turned down job offers to take a position only to be laid off a year later? Nobody is proposing that the company that laid them off pay a penalty due to the lost opportunity or moving expenses that ended up being wasted.
You could theoretically have a contract provision for that. Same for these training costs. Of course, the issue is that the company has vastly more bargaining power and can impose such a requirement on you, while you (unless you are a star) cannot extract a promise to refund moving expenses.
The real issue is that the moment labor have power to force better wages, better benefits, and better employee contracts, the Fed magically decides that inflation is being caused by increasing wages (and not green new deal energy policy or mindlessly printing trillions of dollars). The solution? Jack up the rates in order to indirectly shit on labor in the name of “tackling inflation”.
Another issue: these sorts of global interventions only happen on behalf of global corporations. No one cares if runaway labor costs destroy your small town business.
The Federal Reserve is a private corporation owned by bankers. It's something of a moot point since the same people also control the government, but in any case they do what's good for them. People are just cogs.
The fed is autonomous with oversight from congress
"Autonomous" meaning who's in charge? Who owns it, and who runs it?
The Fed does not work for you, me, or small businesses. The Fed works for it's member banks. It acts only in their best interests. Hence the constant blowing of asset bubbles followed by popping. Only the ones at the very top really profit from all of this.
Bullshit. We have a labor shortage in the US and employer bargaining power is at an all-time low. Nobody is forcing you to take any job. No one is putting a gun to your head.
As the welfare state continues to grow, employer power will continue to diminish because people will be fine with leeching off of welfare instead of working.
Lemme guess: time for mass immigration?
"We need more visas, or else we might have to hire a white guy"
Is that not why companies are pulling shady shit like this?
They're completely out of legitimate options to retain staff - they can't afford to pay competitive wages, they've too much work on to be flexible. So, the remaining option - start punishing your staff if they leave.
That doesn't work, because you'd need to agree to a training reimbursement if you break your contract early when you sign your employment contract on hiring.
So if the company isn't willing to pay you "competitive wages", why would you agree? You wouldn't.
The real reason this is happening is that desirable employers are refusing to hire people without experience, so entry levels are forced to go to "undesirable" employers to get training, then promptly dump them and get a "better" job the minute they have enough experience. The employers who are getting used and exploited need to try to stop this exploitation and reduce turnover, so they very fairly say "your employment contract is X months, and we will eat the cost to train you if you complete your contract, but if you leave early, you need to partially reimburse us based on how long you stayed". It's not about "punishment", it's about the employer not being taken advantage of.
Don't give me this crap. As you well know, there are legal limits to what contracts can impose on parties. I cannot sell myself into slavery to you, even if you didn't put a gun to my head.
How exactly does 'welfare' relate to 'employers'.
Welfare is an alternative to employment. So the better welfare is, the more people will decide to go on welfare rather than work.
Hell, Trump and Biden paid me I think $1,250 per WEEK during COVID just because the courts closed even though I could still work. Literally just showered me and everyone else in California at that level. THAT'S $65,000 PER YEAR, MORE THAN THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME. For doing NOTHING except signing up on some govt website for free shit.
A lot of people took that money and stopped working for a prolonged period, which caused both inflation and a recession.
It's not. Nobody is "trapping" the worker. They can leave at any time and reimburse the employer a modest sum for the training.
No, it's not. They have freedom of contract under Common Law to agree with the worker that the worker will repay some training costs if the worker exploits the employer for training and then leaves soon after.
LOL dude this happens ALL THE TIME and it's called a severance. Employers pay workers penalties all the time for cutting their contracts short.
Its like we got all the crappy parts of a cyberpunk dystopia without any of the cool parts like OTC cyberware and cloned organs installed on-scene by robot ambulances.
Frankly, those parts seem even more terrifying than these ones.
Let me be me, please, without any cloned organs and uploaded minds and whatever the hell these creeps can come up with to control people.
The matrix sounds cool till you realize who is in charge of it.
Cyberpunk dystopias generally assume that the people running them are competent and grounded in reality. Demolition Man for example was essentially run by a Sci Fi version of Sir Humphrey Appleby.
Meanwhile here in the real world our supposed "leaders" are either incompetent or not grounded in reality.
That's all scary too tbh
I am ambivalent about this, and I am the farthest from a corporate boot-licker.
Allowing companies to recoup training costs if employees quit very soon afterwards encourages them to invest in their employees.
Can't believe I'm agreeing with Keith Ellison on anything.
A healthy bond between employers and employees is good. This seems like a healthy direction to moving towards. Apprenticeships under skilled tradesmen used to be purchased.
Purchase of employees is not exactly a healthy bond, and I don't think you can in any way force them to care about one another. But at least don't get in the way of stuff that benefits both parties.
Given the lightspeed corruption of everything remotely institutional these days, I fully expect practically useless yearly compulsory "training" at every basic Amazon position, provided by an Amazon affiliate with massively inflated costs.
And for the courts to bend over backwards to excuse it and flimsy promises like Ellison's 'inclination' to evaporate the second the big boys are involved.
There is a world of difference between being a "corporate boot-licker" and respecting centuries of common law embodied in the concept of freedom of contract.
Employment is supposed to be consensual on both sides. Nobody is forcing the worker to sign any contract they don't want to sign. Similarly, if the worker does not like a contact provision the employer wants, the correct response is "I decline" and to find a different job, not "omg Democrats come force the employers to write the contract to my preferences".
If these contracts are truly banned, what happens when NO employer will hire entry level anymore? What happens when your 1st "job" basically pays you minimum wage, or not at all and classifies itself as a school and makes you pay tuition, all because Democrat decided to ban freedom of contract regarding on the job training?
Arrogant liberals think they can micromanage the capitalist economy. It consistently leads to unintended and worse consequences.
It's not exactly consensual when one side has vastly more power than the other. If there's a 1000 others for me, then I don't have the power to negotiate up.
Hey, no one's forcing you to sign! You could just starve! Your choice! Har har har.
Not everything that Democrats do is automatically bad. If they protect employees from ravenous corporations, that is... good.
Yes, these are valid points. And I think I pointed out that in such cases, it should be allowed. But abuses need to be stemmed. It cannot be that a company gives you a worthless training "worth" $100,000, so you're basically an indentured servant.
The way it works here is that such training costs are amortized. So your contract says that if you quit within 1 year, you pay back 66%, in 2 years 33% and in 3 years 10%. That seems reasonable.
Not consistently. I absolutely prefer the European model to the American one, where I have legally mandated PTO, unlimited "sick days" as you absurdly call them, and an assortment of protections.
It's all a trade off. None of it is a free lunch. The PTO comes out of my (FSB according to you) pay, effectively. But it is good.
"Git gud" says the CEO as he lights his cigar with a $100 bill.
Employers are the weaker ones right now because of the labor shortage. THIS is why employers love illegal immigration and open borders: to flood the labor market and give themselves leverage. And this is why the Right tries to limit immigration and stop the race to the bottom. The Left USED to agree with this but totally sold out in order to pack the country with brown people bc the libs think brown = vote Democrat.
Libtards in the EU follow the same principles. They assume Muslims and Africans will be easy left wing lock votes.
Poor people in the US are fat as fuck. Nobody is starving.
I mean name 1 thing.
nobody would take that job, though. And I know actual cases of this. Like a nurse with a max $15k training reimbursement on a salary over $60k, where the $15k drops every month until it hits 0 at the 1-2 year mark somewhere. The training is always substantially lower than your salary, even at the peak, and it drops pretty fast as long as you don't plan to "get trained then jump ship".
SURE some employers can try to abuse it just like some Ebay sellers can say "I want $500 in shipping for this $10 item" but the solution, like with ebay, is to just say no.
It's the same way here.
If you make decent money, what you will quickly see is its a net losing proposition for you. You can add up the value of what the government gives you, and compare it to your taxes, and it's a huge net loss. In the US you could easily buy your own health insurance with all the money you save in taxes and have plenty left over.
Socialism only really helps the people at the bottom. The unproductive losers. It drags down the winners and boosts up the losers. That's a perverse incentive structure that punishes success and rewards failure. That's not a sustainable system long term if anyone is going to game it. Sure if you have an amazing culture where everyone wants to work hard despite the bad incentive structure, cool, but what if you get flooded with immigrants who give 0 fucks about society and just want to be selfish? Ooops, system breaks down.
One of the secrets of China's success is that that country is BRUTAL with pretty much no welfare state whatsoever, combined with somewhat low taxes. It results in a far more growth-oriented system. The welfare state is like a parasite that drains the life out of the economy. If there was no welfare people would suffer in the short term, but in the longer term GDP would be so huge and there would be so much wealth that it would "solve" poverty even without the forced redistribution.
Yep, it basically comes down to "read your contract and know the law", something everyone should be doing anyway.
The issue is that "your contract" isn't much of a choice when you either sign or starve.
Sounds like a shitty practice employers in India would do.
I guess we should check the CEOs and upper management
It's Pajeets doing it here, too. The Macro goal of H1B is to normalize third-world conditions.
I was assured by Nikki Haley that America's Magic Dirt would prevent this from happening and indeed immigrants are more American than Americans.
This has been a thing for a long time with nurses and some other professions.
It is perfectly valid. In any industry, there are high demand employers everyone wants to work for and low demand employers no one wants to work for. A lot of the entry level applicants will settle for the shitty employer and then nope the fuck out of there as soon as they build up enough experience to switch to a better employer. This results in the good employers essentially exploiting the shitty ones for free training.
While this is a good capitalist result, the less desirable employers have the right to essentially say "unless you work for us for X months, you owe us Y for training" in order to mitigate their turnover.
Considering that this would have been repeatedly told to her in order to deter her from quitting, and been part of a contract she signed, she is a giga-idiot if she was truly "shocked".
Agreement, meaning signed contract.
Fucking Democrats and their socialism. It is a VOLUNTARY CONTRACT. Don't like it? DON'T SIGN IT. "But then they won't hire me". Umm, yes? You think you have the right to dictate terms to an employer? You don't. If you don't like the terms of the job offer, don't sign and find a different job.
"Employers aren't behaving the way Democrats want them to." Boo fucking hoo.
Nope, and idiotic. Nurses only sign because they need that job and every better place won't hire them because they lack the training. Shitty hospitals effectively become training hospitals, which is a self-reinforcing cycle that keeps those hospitals shitty. It's not as easy as "just pay more" or "just treat your workers better". The hospital has every right to try to thwart the practice of new nurses working there for 6 months then leaving for a "better" hospital after getting trained up there.
I acted knew a nurse in this situation. It was a 2 year contract. The cost of training started off at like 15k and lowered each month until it hit 0 at 2 years. She planned to just leave and pay the penalty since her new job was going to pay her more anyway.
So about 17% of nurses had to work at a training hospital as a 1st job. Who cares.
If all employers did this, we could dispense with universities.
You don't even need all employers to do it, only the largest corporations or those in specialized fields. Smaller companies will naturally benefit when skilled workers change jobs.
It's when they quit. No one works for the same company forever anymore. This is predatory.