Training requires loyalty to work - if companies can't expect trained personnel to stay then the investment is pure overhead.
To be fair, it's corporate America that burned that bridge in the 80s with layoff culture, citing "economic efficiency".
To be fair, it's corporate America that burned that bridge in the 80s with layoff culture, citing "economic efficiency".
Allow me to learn on the job and I will be reluctant to leave for company that don't.
* We train you for six months and pay you full salary.
* You have to work for us for two years past the end of your training period.
* If you leave before that, you owe us 50% of salary from the training period. (or whatever)
In a competitive market, you might even see other companies willing to buy employees out of their contracts.
In California, for example, you can't even dock someone's final paycheck if they fail to return a uniform - if someone worked the time to earn a wage and you don't pay them in full, you're going to find yourself in court.
Then it's not "clawing back" pay, it's just a fine for breach of contract.
I do think laws should prevent low-wage employers from screwing over their employees for piddling stuff like uniforms, but I think that's different than something like a professional apprenticeship.
It's kind of mental accounting for the employee, though. The law firm is basically giving you an extra $100 or whatever per paycheck. However, this $100 is earmarked to pay off your law school debt, so in effect the company is helping to pay for your training.
The nice part for the company is that they do not take on any risk paying for the training: the employee already shouldered all the risk for paying for law school. The company buys a little bit of loyalty by helping the employee pay off the debt over time. It probably makes the employee think twice before quitting or looking for other employment; it is similar to the health insurance benefit in that respect.