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.
Ok, I have to say, for all the people saying that I'm an idiot for not reading the contract , you are completely ignorant and idiotic yourself.
For one , would I have been able to get this out of my contract had I realized it?..my guess is 99% chance of no considering its not some random 2 employee organization. It had to of been checked with lawyers to some extent.
Two , had I read it and realized it couldn't be removed , would I have said no and moved on...no and neither would anyone else who was looking for a new job.
And finally , I obviously read it but just didn't read things like that because who would of expected to want to leave after a few weeks.
So in reality , whether I read it or not is irrelevant , this thread was simply to figure out whether I would actually have to pay it back.
So for all the people who answered that specific question , Thank You.
Two , had I read it and realized it couldn't be removed , would I have said no and moved on...no and neither would anyone else who was looking for a new job.
You *can* cross stuff out and request amendments to contracts. These employers sound crazy in the first place and might have said no, but reasonable people will work with you.
I really would call the Labor Board on this. That clause seems unenforceable. I think you could sue them in small claims if they withheld your last paycheck. Maybe you could even get damages!
Maybe. It's likely not worth the company's time & money to sue you (although they would likely win, since it's in the contract), but if there could be somebody who is pissed off and wants to get you.
Just because something is in a contract does not make it legal. This sounds highly illegal. I have seen paybacks for tuition, and relocation expense, but never for services rendered.
There are companies that have a clause to reimburse all the training expenses from the year before an employee quit, because they feel that they were making an investment and when the employee did not planned to stay. I don't know how much they can enforce this and if this they will only with really expensive courses and certifications. In the OP case, I bet they think that the first three weeks are almost like training where the employee is only learning his duties. Anyway three months is a really short time to hold on and avoid that headache.
Maybe. It's likely not worth the company's time & money to sue you (although they would likely win, since it's in the contract)
NOO...Just because something is in the contract doesn't mean that the contract is enforceable . A contract can't supersede law. I can't pay you less than minimum wage if I write it into the contract that you agree to work for $4.75 an hour. Similarly, I highly doubt you can reclaim wages you paid already and that the employee earned just because its in the contract. It isn't a relocation bonus or tuition reimbursement or anything like that.
Basically, if a contract has terms that are overwhelmingly in favor of the party that has superior bargaining power, then the contract isn't valid. In this case, the employee NEEDS a job, and isn't in a position to negotiate the contract.
You have to do it if it's in an agreement you sign. However, any employer that requires a former employee to pay back their salary/relocation costs is cheap and not a quality company to work for.
Wrong: This is very common among the best companies. If you don't want to work for at least the x period of time then you should never have taken the sign on bonus in the first place.
Wrong: This is very common among the best companies. If you don't want to work for at least the x period of time then you should never have taken the sign on bonus in the first place.
The OP didn't get a sign-on bonus. They want him to pay them back 3 weeks of salary that he already earned if he leaves before 3 months. Bizarre!
What they are really saying is, that first 3 weeks was purely a period of training and was no benefit to the company. The cost of the training period, is equal to 3 weeks work time. They want back their cost for when this person was not giving them any benefit from his/her being there.
As to being legal, I don't know as laws vary between states.
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.
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.
. A contract can't supersede law. I can't pay you less than minimum wage if I write it into the contract that you agree to work for $4.75 an hour. Similarly, I highly doubt you can reclaim wages you paid already and that the employee earned just because its in the contract. It isn't a relocation bonus or tuition reimbursement or anything like that. 
