Posted on 10/21/2022 4:47:31 AM PDT by EBH
Workers quit in high numbers over the past few years — sometimes after being at the job under a year.
Some employers are demanding that quitting workers reimburse them for their training costs.
These agreements have generally been upheld in court, but are beginning to come under more scrutiny.
Companies have grappled with labor shortages over the last few years as workers have quit at near-record rates. Now some businesses are trying to make it more costly for employees to join the Great Resignation.
Nearly 10% of US workers are covered by training repayment agreement provisions, according to a study from the Cornell Survey Research Institute, first reported on by Reuters. These provisions, or "TRAPS" as critics calls them, require workers to reimburse their employer for some of their job training costs if they quit too soon.
Most prevalent in the healthcare, trucking, and retail industries, these agreements can cost quitting workers thousands of dollars. The Student Borrower Protection Center estimated in July that these agreements are prevalent in industries that collectively employ over one-third of US private-sector workers.
"Employers are looking for ways to keep their workers from quitting without raising wages or improving working conditions," Jonathan Harris, an associate law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, told Reuters.
Over the last several years, there's been an increase in not just quitting, but "quick quitting" — leaving one's job after less than 12 months, according to LinkedIn data. This was up nearly 10% versus the prior year as of March and remains elevated today.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
This is to help HR weed out short-timers from the pool of applicants.
Bet it works, too.
The beauty of it is, chasing down their money and court just isn’t worth it.
Well, if you signed the employment contract with a clause in it...I would think so. The article indicates it is legal.
A company can try to enforce pay for training contracts in court but as one poster mentioned it’ll often cost more than they’ll recoup. It also gives these companies a bad reputation among potential employees at a time when the labor market is tight. What you might have gotten away with in normal times could dry up your employee pool if you get a reputation for being a difficult company to deal with. The labor market has changed and businesses are going to have to adjust to the new dynamic, you can’t bully employees any more and stay in business. I get a chuckle when I see people post that employees better take a bad deal or their job will be automated. If the job can be automated it will be anyway, automation will always be cheaper.
I might also get accused of “being on the wrong board” for taking the side of workers. I’d ask when it became fashionable for conservatives to take the side of trying to drive middle class American workers into poverty. Traditional America relies on a large middle class, the “American Dream”. A ruling oligarchy with a bunch of peasant workers is the stuff of communism, socialism, and feudalism. Blindly taking the side of companies using legal bullying tactics to squeeze every last nickel from their employees in the name of profit is a lot more like communist China than any place I’d want to live, and it’ll backfire on us.
LOL, potential Senator.
Worst Senate race ever...
Maybe Oz will win and be okay, but I think he’s just a Turkish Mitt Romney.
I was wrong about the spread between the two, so maybe I’ll be wrong about his potential voting record as well.
I don’t trust muslims, period.
Nor do I, especially ones that are citizens, and veterans, of another country.
He’s very intelligent, but he took advantage of stupid women pushing BS pills
and false narratives.
I could help those women. Eat salads, lift weights, go for daily walks, do yoga, and quit chugging Chardonnay.
The other side of the coin are the workers that stay with a company for years only to fired when the company can find someone cheaper to do the job (and expecting to current employee to train their replacement).
Loyalty is a two way street.
And like the current rash of "why remote working is bad for productivity" business articles, methinks this is nothing more than another C-suite/MBA propaganda piece to make them feel good about not raising salaries (except theirs of course) to keep up with inflation, and using the threat of recouping training costs as an unethical way to reduce turnover.
Employers that do often run into problems quickly;
"If you're going to pay for Joe's master's program, why not this training for our team?"
"Because graduates of that program are what this company needs. Hey, by the way, we need you and your team to complete this critical Herculean project. Let me know when it can be done."
"You mean the project that requires the training I keep asking you about about but you said it wasn't as important as the master's program you're paying for Joe? Yeah... it'll get done when Joe figures it out which is never."
Those that do pay for training often require any recipient to sign an agreement that they'll reimburse the company if they leave before a certain amount of time.
Along those lines, I know individuals who refused training because being "certified" in certain things meant they were going to be on the hook for all sorts of additional headaches with no real additional compensation. Look around and notice a dearth of fellow employees who'll sign up for First Aid or Fire Warden duties.
I have friends whose bosses were irate when they discovered my friends had earned degrees on their own and kept their mouths shut about it. One of the funniest and most awkward was one that a friend had with our boss.
"What's this I hear about you working toward your MBA? You know we have tuition assistance for that. We have a role you can fill that will really help the division."
"Ummm... yeah, about that. I finished my MBA program this semester and was going to tell you that I've taken a position at another company."
I look at this that this is no different than moving expenses.
My son got paid $12K in moving expenses when he took his job a year ago. In his contract it stipulated if you leave for another job within two years, you have to pay back the moving expenses.
Of course, the government is now saying that it is okay to not pay back your student loans, even though you signed a contract for that too.
More propaganda from business interests.
You want me to repay my training costs if I quit in under a year? Fine, sue me. You’ll end up spending more on legal fees than you’ll get from the courts.
• Quiet quitting
• Quick quitting
These are phrases used to smear employees who are acting in their own best interests.
Quiet quitting = working to the job description.
Quick quitting = leaving your job for a better paying job, one with better working conditions, or one with a better career path.
But, but, we gave you some training, so you have to remain in a crappy, underpaid job for the next 5 years!
As the article says: “Employers are looking for ways to keep their workers from quitting without raising wages or improving working conditions,”.
>>I’d ask when it became fashionable for conservatives to take the side of trying to drive middle class American workers into poverty.
You are mistaken - this conservative is on the side of ‘if you sign a contract with your employer, you are obligated to carry out its terms or face retribution’.
Just like this conservative believes if you sign a student loan agreement, you should pay it back yourself. There is no difference.
It is the other party that believes everyone should get a ‘get out of jail free card’ anytime they don’t feel like obeying the rules, or honoring contracts and agreements.
Contracts/written agreements/policies have consequences - don’t like the employers rules, don’t work there.
So BILLING the employee for the training is the answer? I can’t wait to see what this does.
Unless you pay me $1000, you’re not allowed to quit? Employee stays, commits any number of subversive acts, is fired, and then you’re on the hook for unemployment.
This is how you end up with unions. Incredibly short sighted.
That incentive has been there a long time; the chief difference now is that if it can’t be automated, they’ll use two or three Asian coolies to replace a Western white-collar worker. Whether they traffick them here or send the work there isn’t a big deal to them; if contracts stipulate data can’t leave the US, they move the coolies here - if it isn’t required, the work is sent overseas.
A lot of people quitting are taking other jobs, and “quiet quitters” aren’t quitting - they are “acting their wage” and doing the minimum required (while they are paid the minimum the employers believe they’ll tolerate).
My son just started driving OTR for a large flatbed carrier.
Since he’s an experienced flatbed driver, he only had a weeklong training school. Plus two weeks with a senior driver.
I doubt he has a payback clause. However, they were also running a class of new employees so inexperienced they didn’t even have a CDL. I’d fully expect a payback contract for that.
I am glad you said that. I agree with you 💯
It’s amazing how this board has deteriorated. The snowflake you responded to clearly does not understand contracts and feels he or she is entitled to literally everything.
This is why I am glad I am registered in a completely at will state.
I would simply point out you advocate for stealing and not honoring contracts. Says everything I need to know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.