Pay back Salary if I leave within 3 months? (employment, owner, jobs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If this isn't some mom and pop employer I'm guessing they worded it in a way that they know will be legal. I doubt they just put it in there without checking with their legal department.
If this isn't some mom and pop employer I'm guessing they worded it in a way that they know will be legal. I doubt they just put it in there without checking with their legal department.
Big prestigious companies create non-competes that are routinely tossed out by the courts. Sometimes they hope the existence of the clause is enough to intimidate the employees into compliance.
Including a clause about relocation costs is standard and is smart business. Paying relocation fees is an investment in someone. Why should a company foot the bill for a person to move when that was their only goal and they never intended on staying with the company long term? You just know some people would do that if they could.
I understand it's costly, but it's the company's fault for not investigating enough into the hired worker. The employer should make sure the newly hired employees intentions aren't going to work only for a month and leave. They can do this by stating in the interview that they must work for the company at least a year, and have them sign an agreement on it.
I'm also a firm believer that nobody can blame you for leaving another employer offers you higher pay and better career advancement opportunities.
the reality is that they aren't going to do anything other than bother you if you leave. they would have to sue you, get a judgement against you, then send it to collections after you don't pay, etc.
it's a lot of work and a high cost to them to do all of that and no board of directors will approve it because all they care about is $.
i had a job once that had a relocation clause in it. if you leave within 2 years, you owe a prorated amount of the relocation assistance. the company always sent a bunch of official looking documents asking for payment...most people never paid...you'd be blacklisted from ever being hired again at the company and that was it.
I agree you should call the Dept of Labor and ask if this is legal. I think not. And I agree that companies often put illegal clauses in contracts - either their "lawyers" are inept, or they are hoping to get away with it because everyone will assume it must be legal if it's in their contract.
But, if the law says it's not legal, then that portion of the contract is not enforceable.
How is it cheap to spend 20k to relocate someone then have them quit after 3 months and want the 20k back?
And this does happen.
I was talking to a boss the other day who had an employee who left 13 months after getting relocated, at an employer that requires employees to pay back relo if they leave within a year. Boss found out during that year that the employee's spouse had taken a job in our city and the spouse's job didn't pay for relocation. It eventually became clear that the employee didn't really want the job after all, she just wanted the relocation.
It does seem like a company could require an employee/former employee to pay back the costs of professional certifications or credentials. I'm not suggesting that is the case here, but that does seem reasonable. There are a couple of certifications in my industry that cost a lot of money to obtain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.