Asked to repay costs of training if I leave within 12 months [duplicate]

Question

Very briefly, In the UK, I've been asked to sign a document stating I will repay the cost of a training course if I leave the company in the year following it. Am I being unreasonable to refuse to sign the agreement? And accepting this means I won't be going on the training?

I do not intend to leave the company in the near future, however I like to keep my options open at all times especially now, as my personal life is in a severe state of flux.

I'm not convinced the training is necessary, I believe it will benefit my organisation a lot more than it will benefit my career. The training alone is worthless without experience, so if I wanted to use it to leave the organisation I'd have to stay for at least a year anyway to gain some experience in the product. The training is also expensive at £3,000 for a 5 day course.

I understand the companies viewpoint that they do not wish to risk training budget on an employee who may then leave the organisation. However, I believe that it is their responsibility to provide an environment where people do not want to leave, rather than creating clauses to force them to stay. Also, an employee with 7 years service should not be considered a flight risk.

If I refuse to sign the document and don't go on the training it will cause a few problems internally, I am concerned it will stifle my career in the organisation as I won't have the skills going forward to do my job effectively and others who accept the training and the terms will progress above me.

So, am I being unreasonable? Needlessly antagonistic? I've been told this is a 'standard' requirement 'these days', is that true?

Answer 1

So, am I being unreasonable? Needlessly antagonistic?

No. You've been offered a deal and you're performing "due consideration". As any deal offer requires.

I've been told this is a 'standard' requirement 'these days', is that true?

It's a standard to require such agreements. It's not a standard to accept them blindly.

This is your answer here:

I'm not convinced the training is necessary, I believe it will benefit my organisation a lot more than it will benefit my career.

You already know it. Say: "I don't believe this training is beneficial to me, therefore I don't want it. If the company wants this training for me, then I will do it without the indenture.". The critical part is that you're not refusing the training itself. You're refusing only the indenture. Often, you can be fired for refusing to develop your work-related skills, but this is not the case here and you should make that part very clear.

Their rationale here is that it's just another fair deal, both sides gain something valuable: the employee gets the training, the employer gets guaranteed return on their investment. But "valuable" is in the eye of the beholder - if your side of the deal is worthless to you, you have 0 incentive to sign it. All you have to do now it to explain them this part.

They can either back down on requirements or they can sweeten the pot, eg. by adding another training that you actually want. Negotiate.

Answer 2

To pick the only point that is actually answerable in our current format:

I've been told this is a 'standard' requirement 'these days', is that true?

Yes, that is pretty standard. Many companies do that, for all training and all employees. This is not about you or your specific training, this is likely a company-wide policy.

As for the actual decision? We cannot take that for you. You will have to decide how you want to proceed. You can take it or leave it, you seem to have the right idea about where your decision will lead you.

Answer 3

I was in a similar predicament just 2 months ago. Except I was wholehearted planning to leave ASAP.

I work in software development. I was to go on training overseas and was expected to sign the usual 12 month contract. I was completely willing and eager to do the training, but seeing as I was actively searching for a new job I was reluctant to be tied down. So I phoned my trade union for advice.

They advised me to sign the contract but delete the tie-down clause. You may not refuse training, but they may not force you into an indenture.

Jurisdiction: South Africa.

Answer 4

In European countries where I worked it's legal and it's done by many companies. Personally I have signed such an agreement twice in two years while working in the Netherlands, and the clause was to refund 100% of the training cost upon leaving within 1 year, 66% upon leaving within 2 years, 33% upon leaving within 3 years. The decision to leave has to be on my side, if the company decides to terminate my employment I am not due to refund anything.

If it's legal and you still want to leave the company, you can ask your new employer to cover that as part of the negotiation. Since these training allowances are common, it's also not unheard of for the companies, too.

Answer 5

It amazes me employers still try this.

I first saw this about 25 years ago. Back when videotape was a primary medium for broadcasting, maintaining and doing regular overhauls on professional VideoTape Recorders was a skill that many of us in broadcast engineering ended up needing.

One of the major manufacturers offered a course/certification in this, and a lot of broadcasters sent their engineers. Now to be clear: This was a transferable skill. This manufacturer was the "default" and their equipment was probably about 60% of the installation base in the US.

The only company I know who ever tried to "push" for the training repayment (signed, too) in court was a religious broadcaster in Missouri, and they lost - spectacularly.

10 years ago this might have been something to worry about. Today, the demand for skilled employees is so high in EVERY field that it's amazing this is still being pushed around, and a company that tried to sue an employee over it would be crucified in the trade press.

Personally, I would decline any offer with this rider. It's not only obviously heavy-handed, but it makes it quite clear that they put no value on you as a skilled employee, and your only "value" to them is what they provide to you. These agreements are insulting at their core and, as I said, I'm amazed they're still around.

Answer 6

Imagine you looked around for new jobs, and one company would offer you an excellent job if you only had training X. And the old company offers exactly that training. They very understandably don't want to pay for your training, and then you leave and the new company gets the training for free.

So the situation is not uncommon. You could reasonably expect the new company to pay for the cost, since they are the ones benefitting from your training.

An exception would be some very company specific training that isn't going to help you in any over job. Let's say your company had software created specifically for them and nobody else in the world uses it, and training in the use of that software will not help anywhere, then I wouldn't like to pay for that training.

Answer 7

If you don't want to commit for 12 months you might be able to negotiate a lower duration of the repayment period.

I have a clause in my current work contract, that I have to repay every training I recieved in the last 6 months. The first version of the contract also suggested 12 months. As I was not willing to commit for that long, I just asked my employer if they could lower this to 6 months. They sent me a new contract without any disuccsion.

Answer 8

It is a reasonable requirement. The problem is that it's vague. It should state what the cost of the training would be, and it should include exceptions that would be acceptable reasons for leaving. The cases mentioned in the other answers where courts disallowed the requirements were instances where there were no exceptions for serious illnesses, urgent family business, and so forth. Your "personal life ... in a severe state of flux" could result in situations that deserve an exception.

Answer 9

I think you are overthinking this one.

If you don't plan on leaving I don't see why not take the training and sign that agreement.

Surely, if you don't sign it expect them not to give you such training, and if not taking it could make things harder for you then even more reason to take it.

Worst case, if you leave for another (better) job chances are you can cover the expenses, or in some cases even negotiate with the new company to pay for it (if they really want you, that is).

Answer 10

I agree with the above answers, my previous employer had a process whereby they would reduce the amount payable for each month into that 12 month period.

In regards to an employee of over 7 years not being considered a flight risk. This isn’t strictly true and you’re going down the road of discriminating employees who haven’t been there as long. If you didn’t sign it and left without paying and an employee left who hadn’t been there 7 years and had to pay, it wouldn’t really be fair on the other employees part.

Answer 11

Yes, this is quite a normal (and fair) proposition in some companies in some countries. It is difficult without more context to know if you are being reasonable.

They are offering you what they see as a benefit to you and them which will incur significant expense to them and which will be lost should you leave before making use of it for them.

So the offer can be seen as fair if the training genuinely is of benefit to your career beyond this company.

However, if you do not see the benefit to your career, and you do not want to take the risk, then you can do a couple of things:

1. Decline the training.
2. Propose alternative training of similar or lesser cost which will carry the same "penalty" should you choose to leave early. This training will be of clear benefit to your career beyond the company - but unless it is also of clear benefit to the company, you cannot expect them to be interested in paying for it. In addition, they have to consider whether granting your request will have follow-on consequences with other employees.

In each case above there is a chance the company may see you as being unreasonable and not to be counted on for the long term, but without knowing more about the specific training offer and your career goals it is difficult to assess whether that is so.

Answer 12

It seems reasonable to your employer to ask you to pay for training, either in services rendered by working for them for a year, or in cash. So, if you simply refuse the requirement, you will be perceived as unreasonable. And if you are perceived as unreasonable, yes, it will indeed stifle your career there.

However, I don't quite get why you say that if you accept the deal, you won't be taking the training. That I wouldn't do, because any deal needs to have consideration for both parties. I don't see, either, why providing training that doesn't benefit you will benefit the organization in any way. So, if this really is the situation, there's a management issue which you can perhaps bring — diplomatically — to management's attention and get a pass.

It sounds to me like you're a bit angry that you haven't been consulted on how you feel about taking the training, after putting in seven years. That's understandable, but in the end it's also counterproductive.

If you can't get past taking the training in your mind, you may want to go with your instincts and start looking for another job.

Answer 13

I have been in this situation before, and have spoken to a lot of people regarding this topic.

It's legal for the company to require you to sign, however that doesn't necessarily mean you would have to pay the training fees back in the event that you leave within the specified time frame. A contract can be considered unfair (and therefore non-enforceable) regardless of whether you signed it or not.

There are two high-profile cases ongoing at the moment in the UK concerning these types of companies, one of which I used to work for.

If you live in Europe, and particularly the UK, my advice would be to sign it and forget about that clause. If you really need to leave, they can't make you pay the 'training fees' back. I know people who have successfully done this without repercussion.