Next up, cue the employers complaining that nobody wants to work. This is modern indenture.
They quit their jobs. Their ex-employers sued them for training costs
Submitted 1 year ago by fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to workreform@lemmy.world
Comments
Got_Bent@lemmy.world 1 year ago
ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’d prefer to understand the terms here before meeting judgement. The article intentionally avoids the topic by bringing up a point related, but not saying that happened here and then points out what sometimes happen.
Many times these agreements are quite fair (see what I did there).
RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is the straitstimes trying to piss off the American electorate
falsem@kbin.social 1 year ago
I don't know why OP posted that shit website instead of the actual source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/27/business/training-repayment-agreement-debt.html
mrbubblesort@kbin.social 1 year ago
my guess is it'd be that paywall on that link you posted
VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 year ago
Because the NYT is an extremely overrated pro-establishment shit show? 🤷
rbn@feddit.ch 1 year ago
The training costs are not the craziest part of this claim from my perspective: The Skin and Cancer Institute was trying to make her repay US$38,000 in training costs and more than US$100,000 for “loss of business” caused by the company’s inability to transfer Ms Lakey’s responsibilities to someone new.
They we’re probably paying a fraction of that as a salary and then want to hold the employee accountable that they can’t find a replacement. Crazy world…
bob_lemon@feddit.de 1 year ago
After she gave 4 months notice, too.
falsem@kbin.social 1 year ago
I would let myself become destitute before I paid that.
VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Easier said than done. Have you ever been homeless? I have and it’s really horrible.