Hacker News Reader

Comment by enterneo | Hacker News Reader

I want to quit my job to go for MS this fall, but there is a service agreement binding (2 years) that makes me work for them until Jan 2011, otherwise I need to pay a huge compensation for the bond breakage.

curious to know, is it only in India that I see such binding agreements, or are they prevalent worldwide?

UPDATE:

they reason because we invested money to train you, we expect you to serve us for 1 year after the training.

after a generic training, you need to get trained in any specific technology (which you don't get to choose). I was forced into mainframe; I have a web app development background from college, and due to lack of interest in mainframe and eventually realizing how tantalizing it could be to do something you don't want to do, I decided to apply for MS, and got decent admissions, and now I am not able to go.

View on HN

This is not legally enforceable. This is akin to bonded labour. Talk to some one with a legal background before accepting strong arm tactics from HR departments.

/Indian.

I see from your profile that you work for Infy. I have heard this "we have incurred training costs on you, so you have to work for us for one year" argument before.

AFAIK, this was put in place to deter people who fit your profile to a T (newly minted grad, wanting to go abroad to study).

It will be interesting to see the parts of the employment document which talks about this "expectation" to repay their training.

IANAL, but training a new employee is part of the cost borne by the employer. So, they are not doing any favours to you by giving you that.

These "agreements" are mostly verbal threats ("we will not give you release docs", "we will not provide you with a experience certificate" and of course "you have to pay US" etc.,).

If you want any/all of this for your resume, you have no other way than to tough it out for another few months. Hey, we all know what probationers do in the first year in Infy :D

Or, if you really want to study, forget that you ever worked for Infy and don't bother to mention it on your resume. Of course, this is not palatable for anybody who wants a "clean" resume in India. And, if you have joined Infy, you might be one of them.

Good luck.

Never heard of anything like that in the US, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear of someone trying to pull something like this. Is it both ways? Do they have to pay you if they break the bond?

nope, even if they break the bond and terminate you, you still pay!

Then I have a great business model for Indian entrepreneurs.

The closest I've seen is a minimum term for sign-on bonus, school reimbursement, or moving bonus. Work less than X months and you owe the company back either. But just minimum employment term for start-up training? Training new employees is just part of the cost of doing business and the risk of them jumping is just part of doing business.

I'm sure there are US companies that try it, though.

In America there are some similar things. For instance, my current company is paying the tuition for my masters. I am expected to work for them for at least a year after I receive the last payment or I must repay that money.

In America, I know that there are limits to the types of contracts that can be written, but I am quite comfortable with this one. They didn't have to pay for my masters, and I didn't have to let them. Even the day I graduate I can quit and start another job, I just have to repay the tuition that they gave me.

I have heard from a friend that has done some minor work in film that the film industry also tends to do something similar. If a key actor tries to walk away with the film half finished there are often very large fines involved, at least according to her.

I know nothing about the film industry, but that kind of clause seems to make a lot of sense. Major actors aren't really replacable in the middle of a movie... you'd either need to find a dead-on look-a-like/sound-a-like, cancel the project, re-write the script somehow to limit that characters involvement to what has been shot so far (not always possible), or re-shoot all his/her scenes, none of which sound terribly appealing and all of which sound expensive.

I'm sure you thought of those issues while writing your post, but sometimes I like to think outloud :)

is it only in India that I see such binding agreements, or are they prevalent worldwide?

Holy crap, no.

In Sweden, you start out with one month notice on both parties. The time increases for the employer based on how long you've worked, but generally doesn't for the employee. The only exemption is for "critical" employees where it's hard to find a replacement and losing the person would endanger the company. In such cases I think the notice time for the employee can increase to three months or maybe six months.

Labour laws in the rest of the EU are pretty similar, what you describe is completely unheard of. If a company wishes to train new hires, they take the full cost, and they take the gamble of it working out or not.

While this isn't exactly the same as modern slavery (aka indentured servitude), there are enough parallels to make me very angry at this contract. I will personally be avoiding your employer (infosys according to another comment) in the future, and would encourage others to do the same.

A friend pointed out a similar circumstance which is pretty common in the UK and the US, where a company pays for your formal education (perhaps a PhD), and as a result you work for the for some set length afterwards. This is much more acceptable - if you didn't work for them you would be paying back a modest sum which was used for your own education, not the "huge compensation" you describe.

I don't know anything about labour laws in India, better go read up on that stuff, but on the face of it I'd say it is a non-enforceable scare tactic.

It's like voodoo, it works if you believe in it.

You're an employee or a contractor? Quite unusual for an employment contract I think.

I am an employee.

I have worked in America all my life, never had such an agreement.

In America it would be banned by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Really?

I know a number of people who got advanced degrees (eg MDs) paid for by the military. The terms say that if you work for the military for a certain period after graduation, your tuition is paid in full. If you don't, then you owe your tuition. Either way you have an MD. (I know people who have gone both ways on that.)

That sounds very similar to this situation. And I've never heard of any legal objections to the arrangement.

But that tuition is unrelated to your military work, and it's a contract you enter beforehand where the tuition costs is essentially a bonus.

In the grandparent case the company decided to train him in whatever, and after the fact used that training to guilt him into staying.

But that tuition is unrelated to your military work...

Not so! When the military does this with MDs, they expect them to work, for the military, as that kind of MD. Therefore the tuition is being paid so that you can do the job you were hired for.

The parallel is very good. The military wants to hire you. They want you to do a job you don't have skills to do. While employed by the military you undergo training that is approved by the military. If you serve the military long enough, they will pay off that training, else you are liable for the cost of the training.

The important differences are that in the military case the training is received at an organization that is clearly separate from the military, the degree received is generally recognized as being very valuable, and the candidate has input into what kind of training they wish (within limits) to receive.

For a similar example, lots of private companies provide employer tuition reimbursement as a benefit. For instance they may pay for an employee's MBA, with the condition that the employee work for the employer for a fixed period of time. And typically companies that do this try to use the employees in ways that match the skills the employee is gaining. This is both legal and common in the USA.

I agree that the situations are similar, but like you said, the fact that the training you are receiving has a market-value outside the company and is worthwhile elsewhere does make a difference. The biggest difference, though, seems to be the clarity. In the military, the terms are very clearly spelled out up-front. If his situation is the same, I can't say I feel terribly bad for him, but if they were "fuzzy", which is how it sounds, its definitely shady behavior.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com