Companies start charging for employee training
(archive.ph)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (38)
sorted by:
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.