Training Agreement

hcb42

well look on the bright side - you have done the course. It makes you more marketable.

paddedjohn

DrGash wrote: »

I have recently completed a Leadership course which was organised and paid for by my employer. Before the course began I was made to sign a training agreement which states that if I leave the company within 18 months I will have the cost of the course (£1000) deducted from my final wage (which is standard and seems fair).

Dan

you yourself say it seems fair.

DrGash

I reposted that paragraph as a reply to someone. Now it seems theyve deleted their post, so it looks like ive just ramdomly posted a paragraph.

Thanks for all your comments and advice.

SarEl

DrGash wrote: »

I reposted that paragraph as a reply to someone. Now it seems theyve deleted their post, so it looks like ive just ramdomly posted a paragraph.
.

Yes - you are right! I recall the post but cannot now find it! I didn't think it was possible to delete a whole post, just the contents. But There was definitely a post that said what you say it did - unless we are having shared delusions!

biggaz26

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Of course they knew about it - they are the management and they made the decision to restructure in the first place.

I can't see why repeating a paragraph in your first post makes any difference - do you think we can't read?

My old Nan used to say if you dont have anything nice to say dont say anything....so Im saying nothing!

Sambucus_Nigra

biggaz26 wrote: »

My old Nan used to say if you dont have anything nice to say dont say anything....so Im saying nothing!

Evidently.

MoneySavingUser

SarEl wrote: »

If you signed a training agreement then the law is clear - the debt is owed and the deduction from wages is lawful.

Do you know which Law says this?

These types of clawback arrangements are very popular for Accountancy/Law trainees - however I did read somewhere that lawyers had advised that it may contravene 'freedom of movement' EU regulations as it imposes a condition which may hinder you finding a different job (i.e. you can't afford the clawback)

However this has never been contested in court as a) if you can't afford the clawback you can't legal fees either b) if you do take them to court - it may hinder future employment prospects in the same industry

hcb42

I would have thought it was a breach of contract, but either way it is morally wrong not to pay back. Better to leave with a clear conscience

SarEl

MoneySavingUser wrote: »

Do you know which Law says this?

These types of clawback arrangements are very popular for Accountancy/Law trainees - however I did read somewhere that lawyers had advised that it may contravene 'freedom of movement' EU regulations as it imposes a condition which may hinder you finding a different job (i.e. you can't afford the clawback)

However this has never been contested in court as a) if you can't afford the clawback you can't legal fees either b) if you do take them to court - it may hinder future employment prospects in the same industry

This is not "a law" - it is contract law. And there are many rulings which have upheld such contracts provided that they conform to contract law - they are set down in clear terms, they are signed in agreement, and that the clawback must diminish over a reasonable period of time.

I have similarly heard such arguuments - I am not convinced by them, and clearly the lawyers making such arguments aren't either. It is worth money in the bank to make case law, and if they truly believed that this is an injustice or contrary to the letter of the law, then there is a simple solution - prove it.

If an employer invests a substantial amount of their money in training staff it is only just and equitable that they expect to get some benefit from it. Otherwise every employee would take the money and run, quite literally. This would lead to one simple solution for employers - refuse to ever support employee training (which is not a right in any profession) forcing employees who want to progress their training and career potential to do it at their own expense and in their own time.

MoneySavingUser

hcb42 wrote: »

I would have thought it was a breach of contract, but either way it is morally wrong not to pay back. Better to leave with a clear conscience

hmm but does the employer have morals too?

Generally when I have seen this:

if you leave of your own choosing you have to pay it back

if you get sacked you don't (and know of people who have got themselves sacked so this clause doesn't come into effect)

a lot of the time big corporate firms will take on a bunch of trainees and aren't really bothered if they pass the training as long as they have a set of 'cheap labour' to do the basic tasks - and every year have a fresh supply of people to takeover from the last batch

SarEl wrote: »

If an employer invests a substantial amount of their money in training staff it is only just and equitable that they expect to get some benefit from it. Otherwise every employee would take the money and run, quite literally. This would lead to one simple solution for employers - refuse to ever support employee training (which is not a right in any profession) forcing employees who want to progress their training and career potential to do it at their own expense and in their own time.

Thanks for the explanation re: contract law

But I don't necessarily agree with the last part applying to all industries - some graduate training schemes where these clauses exist - upto 50% of the people hired never finish the course/fail - but the employers don't care because whilst these people are in training positions they have to pay them a lot less wages than qualified staff