From: paradis@sousa.ltn.dec.com (Jim Paradis)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: Employment training liability agreement
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:28:48 GMT
Reply-To: paradis@sousa.enet.dec.com (Jim Paradis)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


Ted Ying writes:
>	I'm not so sure this is unfair to the employee.  The company is
>	trying to provide benefits to employees without getting taken for
>	a ride.  If you accept company training, then you should be
>	prepared to use that training in your work for the company.  If
>	you voluntarily leave within the next year, then your training is
>	not for the benefit of the company, but for the benefit of the
>	individual employee.  If this happens, then there is less money
>	and ultimately less incentive for companies to offer company-paid
>	training for employees.  I think in terms of long-term benefits,
>	it does aid the employees.

Ted, your point is well taken, and indeed there are different ways
that employee training can be administered and used in the workplace.
What I was saying is that, in some cases, the "pay for training"
agreement *has* been used as a form of indentured servitude.  EDS was
a fine example of this 8-)

I hear you about the *possibility* employees' taking the company for
a ride... what I'm saying is that emplyERS can also take employEES
for a ride.  What if, f'rinstance, I take some training, then go to
work using my shiny new skills only to face sexual, racial, or some
other kind of harassment?  Or what if working conditions are *otherwise*
distasteful (lots more forced overtime than I was led to believe at
first, dress code more restrictive than I thought at first ["I'm wearing
my suit and tie... whaddayaMEAN it can only be BLUE??!!"], etc. etc. etc.)
In cases like this, where the employer puts me through the wringer,
should I be forced to *PAY* for the *privilege* of leaving?

In most cases in our society, employers hold more power over employees'
livelihoods than vice versa.  One of the few powers reserved to the
employee is the power to walk when things get intolerable.  In fact,
that's why many free-market absolutists oppose labor laws: "If they
don't like it, let 'em walk!".  Unless we have a *seriously* over-
regulated business climate (and I mean much *more* so than it is now!),
the power to walk needs to be preserved as much as possible.

Mind you, there's nothing *wrong* with employers *wanting* such agreements...
any more than there's anything *wrong* with my wanting a one-year salary
guarantee from an employer 8-)  However, I think *both* sides need to be
informed about the risks inherent in any kind of employer-employee agreement.
The original question was posed by a potential employee, and I answered
it from the employee's perspective.

Few, if any, companies would agree to my hypothetical one-year salary
guarantee except in unusual circumstances.  Yet employers try to shove
things like "one-year employment guarantees" in front of employees all
the time.  A lot of employees sign because they don't know any better
(when I first got out of college I signed a two-year noncompete agreement
that I wouldn't *DREAM* of signing today... but I was young and naive and
figured I *had* to sign *everything*, no questions asked).

I'm just doing my share to alert employees to some of the risks out
there.

--
Jim Paradis (paradis@tallis.enet.dec.com) 
Working for DEC, speaking for myself.