Training agreement 1

[paultaylor04]

My employer makes me sign an agreement with them whenever they send me on training

which basically states that if I leave the organization within 12 months, I would have

to pay them back the costs of the training. If I leave after 6 months, I would have to pay up 50% so it's proportionate. The cost of the training includes:
a) the actual fee paid to the training company (in this case, it's free)
b) travel and lodging costs (approximately $800 for 5 days in this case)
c) opportunity cost (this comes to a very high number since we charge $1300 for an engineering resource, it's 1300 X 5=$6500)

1) Can somebody tell me what's this training agreement exactly called?
2) Do all companies do it?
3) Is it fair to even charge the opportunity cost since it's unlikely that I'll be sent out on training if there is project work due.

 

[Dollie]

I think it is reasonable for a company to do this. Many companies have trained employees (school, seminars, etc) only to see those employees abuse the paid training opportunity and utilize it as an opportunity to go job hunting.

Instead of a training agreement, it is probably an educational reimbursement policy, and yes quite a few companies do it. I'm not sure what the "opportunity cost" is, but it seems like it would cover the cost of replacing you if you left after receiving company-paid training.

 

[MDXer]

If the training was required to keep your job and you were forced into the agreement then the employer might have a hard time collecting.

I was placed in this position with a company and voiced my opinion on it's unfairness and backed my arguement with the fact that what my billing rate is they recoup and expenses with in 3 a couple months max, and that with the pace of technology that the product they train me in this week may be replaced with a newer product in 6 months. They listened and to some extent agreed and we reached a middle ground.

I have however given them 2 training courses that I will garuntee them 12 months if they send me.

Shoot Me! Shoot Me NOW!!!
- Daffy Duck

 

[kHz]

I wouldn't agree to sign anything like that for training. It is a free market economy. If a job opened up that I was interested in and qualified for, I would apply for it, and would not want to look back at my calendar to determine if I could based on the training I received.

It is a part of business. If they want to send an employee to training then they need to realize the costs.

 

[Dollie]

It's a free market economy, and yes, you should be able to work where you choose to.

To look at the other side of the coin:

If you owned a company, sent what you thought was a devoted employee for extensive training, then received their resignation shortly afterward.... would you try to recoup your loss, figure "oh well, next time they're not getting a paid education on my back", or happily send the next person to ask to (a usually overpriced) class?

Many companies have tuition reimbursement and/or paid course training policies. If they did not, why would any high school graduate want to go to college or join the armed forces straight out of school? They could just find a sucker of a boss to pay for their education.

It's not terribly unreasonable for the employer to have expectations of consistency and obligation if the same is expected from the employee/contractor/whatever. It is a part of business.

 

[paultaylor04]

Ok, so what it comes down to is that employers are more or less justified in getting us to sign these agreements. However, what i'm not happy with is charging me for the opportunity cost because it's completely fake. If there was a real opportunity/project I was needed on, they would not send me on the training itself and hence I don't think the opportunity cost should be included in the cost of the training. Training fee & lodging fees are fine with me.

How many of you agree with that?

 

[Dollie]

What is the "opportunity cost"?

 

[kHz]

I have never been asked to sign anything at any company where I worked.

 

[paultaylor04]

Opportunity cost means by sending me to training, the company cannot bill me out to a prospective client. And they count this in when getting me to sign the training agreement

 

[Thadeus]

I feel that the entire agreement is lame.

If the training is required to complete the work then it is a company expense.

If your having the training makes you more marketable for the company then they also have increased opportunity.

Unless the company affords you the opportunity to take the cheapest route to acquire the training, then they must bear the brunt of that decision. In other words, five days in telephony101 at learnIT costs $5000, but you find a book that costs $100 for the smae subject matter... Obviously the book doesn't afford you the same experiences, but is low payback on your part... The company would desire you to take the 5 day course, then it is the company who ought to be stuck with the bill... regardless of your decision to move on in two months time.

I worked for an IBM VAR for one year and they sent me on 5 training programs, some as long as two weeks time. During the entire year, the Services Sales team was unable to sell a single opportunity. So here I was with training out the butt and no opportunity to exercise my skills at a customer site. I looked elsewhere and found a firm that was able to put me in the field... That's the cost of business.

~Thadeus

 

[paterson]

I too had this happen to me. I do understand the company's position, but...

If the company is REQUESTING OR REQUIRING you to attend and complete the training in order for you to do your job, then the cost should be completely their responsibility.

If you are wanting to do some training that will have some benifit to the company and your company agrees to help fund it, then I think the employee should be responsible (atleast partly) for repayment.

I live in Canada and I do know that employers here are not allowed to require payment for past training when an employee leaves. I checked with a lawyer.

What happens when an employee is complelled to quit due to such things as sickness, poor working conditions, spouse moving to another city for their job?

Is the company guaranteeing that they will keep you gainfully employed during this time? It shouldn't work only one way!

I said that this happened to me. I objected to signing the agreement and felt forced to sign in order to be a GOOD employee. I left a couple of months later because of a failure of management to address my request for a salary increase. I was training a tech that was my junior but he was making 10K more a year than I was. I was not responded to for 3 months and then my hours were cut by 20% (all the tech's hours were cut, not just mine.) I had enough and found another job. Then my employer wanted me to pay for the training I had. I actually agreed to do this as I felt that I had signed the agreement. I requested that they send me an ITEMIZED statement of costs associated with the training. I was then sent a bill that not only included the training I had received since signing the agreement, but for ALL the training I had received since being employed with this company. I did not pay them any more money except the last pay check that they kept.

I would highly recommend that you DO NOT sign anything!!

 

[svanels]

In our company we have to sign a similar "contract" if the training exceed a certain amount (inluding travel expenses for training abroad)

Beside that:

If you discontinue a training you have personally requested --> payback 100%
There are exeptions but they must be justified.

For the people who don't agree with the practice of signing a contract, I have the following question:

Would you work for a boss whose excuse for not providing training is: No, because maybe you leave tomorrow

Well, this boss has heard horror stories of other firms faced with the abuse of "former" employees.

I personally know these kinds of bosses, and also colleagues which I classify as vulture or mercenary from a moral point of view. But we are still great friends.



Steven

 

[paterson]

Quote " Would you work for a boss whose excuse for not providing training is: No, because maybe you leave tomorrow?"

What do these bosses do when trying to hire an employee from another company? Do they pay the other company for the training that this new hire has received, due to the fact that the new company will benefit from it? I don't think so! Who is left with the bill then? The employee that was asked by his company to attend training on the company's behalf?

Training is the cost of doing business, period!

 

[TruthInSatire]

Lets say you're a windows network admin. For whatever reason the business now needs to run on unix. You don't have any experience with Unix. The company has 2 options. Send you to training to learn the new system, or lay you off and hire someone with the required skill sets. Option 2 is most likely cheaper (unless they hire the new guy/girl at a higher rate). If the company is going to take the expence of training you when they could just as easy hire someone, what's wrong with another year of service? No point in training you just to have to hire someone new anyway.

I see this a lot with education agreements around here. Contractors tend to make it policy when there is heavy competition for employees. Train the employee to provide the best product to the customer, just to have them work for another contractor and produce those good products with the new knowledge is counter productive.

We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.

 

[Stella740pl]

The company has 2 options. Send you to training to learn the new system, or lay you off and hire someone with the required skill sets. Option 2 is most likely cheaper...

As far as I know, option 2 is never cheaper, unless, in some unlikely case, they would hire someone really good at a much, much lower rate. Think of the money they would usually have to pay to the laid off employee, the recruiter's fee, the cost of interviewing, the catch-up time a new employee will inevitably have, and possibly, also some initial training, and probably more than that.

On the other hand, a newly trained existing employee will, most likely, stay for some time longer.

 

[kHz]

the company cannot bill me out to a prospective client.

Are you a contractor or consultant?

If that is the case, it is different than FTE.

 

[paterson]

I would tend to think that if a company wanted to lay off an employee that they know/have a history with, have a good working relationship with, gets along with everyone else, just to hire a new employee that has the skillset... well, that is not a company I want to work for.

I know, truthinsatire, that is not the point of your statement.

The bottom line is that these agreements are designed to be one way. The whole idea of an "agreement" is that two sides agree to something. When a company is requiring that I attend training on their behalf for their benefit and then request that I reimburse them for the cost of it if I leave, where is my benefit in the agreement. The language of these agreements do not in any way promise anything by the company to the employee, it only requires action by the employee back to the company. How about a salary increase after training is complete written into the agreement? What about a guarantee of job security written into the agreement?

Sorry, but this issue is bringing up old feeling that I thought I had dealt with! ha ha ha!

 

[svanels]

if the training exceed a certain amount

There are company induced trainings and individual induced trainings.

The individual induced trainings are more likely to get restrictions.

From an employer's point of view:
You ask, we pay, you pay us back the investment in the form of the work you deliver.

If you will not deliver the work, give back the money. I see nothing unreasonable in that.

On the other hand, if they give you a computer to do typing work, and they need to send you to a training, it is b.s. to deduct that from you.

I know companies that tried this, and they got "paid" with a very high turnover rate.

Steven

 

[aquias]

I've gotta side with Dollie on this issue. I've seen employee's abuse a company that doesn't take steps to protect itself (actively looking for a new job, while lobbying for additional training).

Yes, this puts the employee at a "risk" to be stuck in an environment they may want leave at a later date. However, the company is investing, in most cases, several thousands of dollars into an employee.

Companies don't need to offer to pay for training. They can tell you to learn it on your own or threaten to bring someone in with the proper skill sets. I don't believe it's unreasonable for a company to ask for some additional security on their investment.

Think of it this way, you pay a stock broker 8,000 to offer advice and tips to you. No period of time is specified but you "assume" that this relationship will be a long lasting one. After a month of working with the broker, he leaves and you're out the money and his skills. By denoting a period of time the company is protecting itself.

Have I had to sign one of these agreements? No. Would I hesitate on signing one? Depends on the company, my comfort level, and the training that is being offered.

 

[Dollie]

I just signed one two months ago. It was *my* decision to go to college. (Side note: I have no formal education other than the past 2 months.) I signed a tuition reimbursement policy that, as I read it, benefits both myself and my employer. I get help paying for my education that applies directly to my job, my employer gets the benefit of an already devoted employee becoming an employee that they won't have to worry about replacing unless they push me out the door to leave.

HOWEVER... I did not plan on the reimbursement, it came out of the blue. I was so pleased that I had no issues signing it.

This comes after watching an employee go to training class after training class and then resign once certified. The classes were the employee's request, not the company's demand.

After seeing all of the other comments, and looking at this from a contracted position with an employer that bills for my services point of view, I can understand the hesitation to sign something that may end up becoming a detriment. As far as the "opportunity cost", it is the company's loss if they send you to training instead of hiring you out to a client, it's something well beyond your control.