Paying for basic training if you leave a job

50_Pence

[FONT=&quot]I was just wondering how common place it is for a company to offer you a role on the condition that you sign to say that you agree to pay back a percentage of the cost of the training that the company has given you if you leave it within a year? Just to clarify, this is basic training needed to do the job (not additional training), and is on the company’s in house computer systems, so it isn’t a transferable skill that you can use in any other job.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The job is quite low paid and the company has put a value on the training that it gives of £1500. If you decide not to take up the role, or leave within the 2 week training period you have to pay back 100%. After training, if you leave before you have been with the company 3 months you have to pay back 50%, and if you leave within a year it’s 25%. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You also have to sign to say that you will pay back this amount within 14 days of being asked for it. Which seems unreasonable if you are being asked for the full £1500.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thanks.[/FONT]

TrickyDicky101

Seems reasonable to me. Why should the company invest in an employee if said employee will take off after the training? 1 year doesn't sound unreasonable. At the end of the day you have a choice whether or not to take the job.

Undervalued

Providing there is a SIGNED agreement in place this is perfectly enforceable.

Just including it in your contract is not sufficient for training fees to be recovered, unlike most contract terms which you effectively agree just by turning up and working.

dawyldthing

we have it that if you leave within 6 months you have to pay your crb money back and also I think its 75 per day of training. I think its fair as they do spend a lot of money recruiting in the first place then training plus sorting payroll and stuff to get you started so seems fair to have to pay something towards it

DKLS

TBH it would put be off accepting the job I have experienced roles in the past where the reality of the role wasn't what was sold to me so have left early, What is the true value of the training?, what does it involve?, classroom, blended or e-learning?

noelphobic

I recently enquired about voluntary (so unpaid) work that I'm really interested in. As part of the application process you had to agree to 2 hours training a week for 8 weeks and then to work a minimum of 20 hours per month for 6 months. If you didn't meet these targets they said they MAY charge you a fee towards the training and DBS costs. As I am currently job hunting I decided against proceeding. This was for a charity though.

I've seen quite a few jobs advertised where you have to pay for your own DBS, which shocked me.

getmore4less

I would insist on the leaving clause being only if you resign and not for any other reason like geting sacked even if gross misconduct, ONLY if you resign.

£1500 is a lot either this is very complicated and the job should pay more or they are doing the training in a very inefficient way.

Its over 6 weeks pay on min wage.

usefulmale

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

Seems reasonable to me. Why should the company invest in an employee if said employee will take off after the training? 1 year doesn't sound unreasonable. At the end of the day you have a choice whether or not to take the job.

Why is that reasonable when the employee has basically no rights for the first 2 years of employment?

TrickyDicky101

usefulmale wrote: »

Why is that reasonable when the employee has basically no rights for the first 2 years of employment?

Why should the employer spend money training someone up if they can walk out of the door the moment training's done thereby wasting that investment?

amiehall

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

Why should the employer spend money training someone up if they can walk out of the door the moment training's done thereby wasting that investment?

It really depends on how "useful" the training is for anything else...

When I was stuck for work at one point I accepted a manager's job at a fast food restaurant. Then my contract came through and it turned out they were expecting huge repayments if you left anytime within the next 2 years.

I decided I couldn't take the role on these terms and found something else. From what I saw while I served my 2 week notice period, I'd have been adding a lot more value sorting things out in store than I would be gaining from this "training".

I'm positive that training on a company's specific systems and procedures should just be provided when you start somewhere, it's not particularly useful to you if you move on elsewhere, so why should I be paying for it?

TrickyDicky101

amiehall wrote: »

I'm positive that training on a company's specific systems and procedures should just be provided when you start somewhere, it's not particularly useful to you if you move on elsewhere, so why should I be paying for it?

But you're not paying for it - you're justifying the company's investment of its time and money in training you up to do your job. There is no relevance at all whether or not it is useful anywhere else - the fact is it costs the company and they want to know they will have some return on that investment through you working for them (and utilising what you've learnt) for a minimum length of time.

At the end of the day the potential employee has a choice - accept the terms or find another job. I probably wouldn't take such a role with these conditions but that doesn't mean I don't understand why the company wants to protect itself.