📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Repayment of “Training” Costs - Enforceable?

Options
2

Comments

  • Dox
    Dox Posts: 3,116 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited 25 November 2020 at 12:19PM
    Why did you sign in the first place? What would have happened if you had refused to do so?
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Newbie
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 25 November 2020 at 4:55PM
    Dox said:
    Why did you sign in the first place? What would have happened if you had refused to do so?
    As per first line in the OP's post - ''Approximately 2 years ago my employer was informed that they require employees to be in the process of getting or have already obtained a certain qualification for staff to be able to deliver the company’s main service.''

    I think it's obvious what the alternative would have been.
  • TELLIT01
    TELLIT01 Posts: 18,017 Forumite
    Tenth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper PPI Party Pooper
    Had the training started before you were given this document to sign? 
  • Are you working in the public sector?  (eg NHS or a LA)  Or providing a service paid for by the public sector?
  • Marcon
    Marcon Posts: 14,480 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Dox said:
    Why did you sign in the first place? What would have happened if you had refused to do so?
    As per first line in the OP's post - ''Approximately 2 years ago my employer was informed that they require employees to be in the process of getting or have already obtained a certain qualification for staff to be able to deliver the company’s main service.''

    I think it's obvious what the alternative would have been.
    Actually it isn't. You might think that, but it would be useful to hear from OP. Their comment wasn't they would be sacked, but rather  'I was not given an alternative to signing either but it was implied that it would be detrimental to the business if we did not do it'.
    Googling on your question might have been both quicker and easier, if you're only after simple facts rather than opinions!  
  • Dox
    Dox Posts: 3,116 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    Marcon said:
    Dox said:
    Why did you sign in the first place? What would have happened if you had refused to do so?
    As per first line in the OP's post - ''Approximately 2 years ago my employer was informed that they require employees to be in the process of getting or have already obtained a certain qualification for staff to be able to deliver the company’s main service.''

    I think it's obvious what the alternative would have been.
    Actually it isn't. You might think that, but it would be useful to hear from OP. Their comment wasn't they would be sacked, but rather  'I was not given an alternative to signing either but it was implied that it would be detrimental to the business if we did not do it'.
    Which is exactly why I asked the question, rather than jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence. 
  • Skuk
    Skuk Posts: 33 Forumite
    Fifth Anniversary 10 Posts
    TELLIT01 said:
    Had the training started before you were given this document to sign? 
    The training had started when I signed the new agreement. The original agreement is quite similar but a lot shorter and mainly says “in the event that you resign during or after your training: 1. During training: 100% of the training costs paid by XXXX up to your resignation” 
  • Skuk
    Skuk Posts: 33 Forumite
    Fifth Anniversary 10 Posts
    Are you working in the public sector?  (eg NHS or a LA)  Or providing a service paid for by the public sector?
    Private sector- small organisation 
  • Skuk
    Skuk Posts: 33 Forumite
    Fifth Anniversary 10 Posts
    Dox said:
    Marcon said:
    Dox said:
    Why did you sign in the first place? What would have happened if you had refused to do so?
    As per first line in the OP's post - ''Approximately 2 years ago my employer was informed that they require employees to be in the process of getting or have already obtained a certain qualification for staff to be able to deliver the company’s main service.''

    I think it's obvious what the alternative would have been.
    Actually it isn't. You might think that, but it would be useful to hear from OP. Their comment wasn't they would be sacked, but rather  'I was not given an alternative to signing either but it was implied that it would be detrimental to the business if we did not do it'.
    Which is exactly why I asked the question, rather than jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence. 
    The alternative was not discussed and we were all fresh and slightly naive graduates who didn’t know any better at the time. 
    But to progress in the organisation, there would have been zero chance as I wouldn’t have been able to do the main part of my job. I’m not sure what they would’ve done but at the time I was concerned I’d lose my job. 
  • Savvy_Sue
    Savvy_Sue Posts: 47,340 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    I don't suppose you're in a union, or a professional body of some kind, who might help you argue your case? https://www.bps.org.uk/
    Signature removed for peace of mind
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.