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.

 

[CajunCenturion]

I think you should sign a contract, but just as the company provide a little protection for yourself. I would suggest that you are only liable to repay the cost if your terminate the relationship. Make sure that you have no liability if it's the company that terminates your employment.

Also, if this training is related to a specific job or contract, then I would tie the time frame to the job, something along the lines of, "one year, or three months after the end of that job/contract, whichever comes first".

You might also want to consider pro-ration. Full re-payment if less than three months, 75% if between 3 and 6 months, 50% repayment between 6 and 9 months, and 25% repayment between 9 months and 1 year.

Like I said, this can be a win-win situation for both the company and employer, provided you both understand and respect the position of the other, and work together.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[jsteph]

This is the only way for a company to protect itself

...another way for the company to protect itself might be to pay the employee more money along with the training instead of forcing the employee to sign some reimbursment agreement. This could raise the salary bar for another company attempting hiring away this employee enough so they might just train their own people.

One way fosters trust, the other distrust.

--Jim

 

[CajunCenturion]

Nothing wrong with that, provided you can remain profitable and competitive in the marketplace, otherwise, both the company and the employee lose.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[aquias]

Change isn't always the reason to discuss things though. Knowledge and an understanding of different perspectives are what drives me to get "down and dirty" with people. One of those "It's about the journey, not the destination" things.

 

[MDXer]

My issue with the repayment of 100% is that in some fields training in today's product release doesn't mean much a year from now as the applications can go through drastic redesigns and functionality changes.

I had this exact issue come up at my current company and I voiced my opinion to my then team lead, which got me called in to the COO's office. Where I again explained my position and offered the alternative of a pro-rate plan since the product I would be trained in would probably go through at least 1 major revision within 12 months.

Unfortunately in this situation there is no one answer that fits all. The type of training, the benefit of the training to the company.

Example:
I am required to be trained in product X it costs 3K after travel and expenses, training takes 5 work days for a cost of say 1200 in wages. I am billed out at $250 an hour, the company would recoup all costs in around 17 billed hours. What about the lost billing revenue since I am not billable for 5 days? well if they opt to send me during a period I can be billed out whose fault is that? The final question is it fair that after 9 months of working ater the training I should be on the hook for 3k when I clearly have generated revenue the would dramatically offset the 3K. Also the training was not my choice so I am to be bound by a contract which I had to sign in order to keep my current job.

People talk about employees being loyal to the company that sends them to training yet in today's world few companies show any loyalty to their emplolyees. Would a company put in the contract that they garuntee you your job for 12 months after the training? I seriously doubt it. Strong arming employees into contracts that have no benefit or protection for the employee is not a way to get loyalty.

Like all contracts it should be negotiated to a point where both parties are comfortable with the potential outcomes.

On the other han if an employee requests training on the companies dime then the company has every right to protect it's intrests.

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

 

[aarenot]

I have read many statements, and many questions.

I will start with a question, and quote it here.


From CajunCenturion

" What would you do, as a manager, to protect your most valuable asset - the employees?"


If the said company, company B, or company A, as in the questions context. Best effort to retain it's employees is to make them liable fot thousands of dollars in cost, when they are, if being trained, probably the person who did the value added work to generate that actual capital in the first place. I would say, they could make a better effort.


Personaly, I invest my time, my ideas, my expertise, and some portion of my carreer into a small company. These things are what make me human capital, not my training. I invest that capital wisely, I hope. I take risk in doing so, I expect a return on my investment as well, so I understand protecting investments.

I think, there are better ways of protecting investments than putting my business partner(employee, employer) in a position of increased liability,, with out some return inolved.

Relationship, trust, mutual equitable profitability, are all difficult things to accomplish, they take empathy, accountability, history of mutual respect, appreciation of others efforts, and expectations of commitment to continued profit enhancements.

Or, make it financialy impossible for the partner to end the relationship, with out considerable cost, and also negating the risk of the other partners investment.

 

[svanels]

I have signed an agreement with my Company because I went to a congress in the USA and the costs involved passed a certain amount. In the contract is stated that if I leave within 12 months, I have to pay the costs. Is this reasonable? Yes I find it reasonable, because I have known vultures which embarked to trainings, and their letter of resignment was waiting to be posted after return. The people doing this were considered white collar workers or the thinking class.

What does the company if you don't weant to sign? Simple, don't send you to training, but after that don't start crying about missed chances, more money, promotions and opportunity to grow.

Steven

 

[aarenot]

I do think that companies that use other ways to retain their employess do not have the same risk as those that use this contract strategy. If you treat employees fairly, compensate, appreciate, encourage, offer goal and peformance based incentives, you will retain employess beyond the 12 month reimbursement contract strategy.
This strategy is short sided, short term, and simply requires the employee to wait 12 months before acting on the actions or lack of actions by the employer to retain them. If your performance as an employer lacks the other components, then this one will postpone the resignations for the duration of the contract reimbursement period, period. It will promote 12 months or less of trained workers, and a supply of money to train your next, future ex-employee. The other components will promote years of profitable healthy relationships of mutual respect and trained workforces.

Each path has its advantages, one without the other may not be wise for either party, both is the only prudent course, even if it includes benefits for both parties involved.

 

[svanels]

If the training offered is a "favour" instead of part of long term goals as defined in mission, vision and values, if you are not sure if your company still exist next year, then you are on a sinking ship. Instead of looking for training, I would be looking for a life raft. Remember the dot.com bubble...

Steven