Some Firms Are Demanding Steep Repayments If Staff Depart (nytimes.com) 154
At 26, nurse Benzor Vidal moved from the Philippines to America for work, but quit his unsafe, understaffed nursing home job after 14 weeks. His employment contract stipulated he could owe $20,000+ in damages if he resigned early. The New York Times Magazine digs deeper: This type of contract provision is known as a "stay or pay" clause, and it used to be common only for certain high-paying roles or in certain specialized industries. For airline pilots and software engineers, for example, it has been a longstanding practice at some companies to require employees to stay at their jobs for a defined period of time in order to recoup costs related to hiring and training. But the line between recouping costs and penalizing workers for leaving can be blurry, and companies have increasingly taken advantage of that ambiguity. Workers' rights advocates say that, in many cases, stay-or-pay clauses no longer accurately reflect the company's costs but instead appear to be inflated financial penalties designed to discourage quitting.
The use of stay-or-pay clauses has grown rapidly over the past decade, and it has seemingly exploded since the start of the pandemic, as companies try to retain workers in a tight labor market. The clauses have spread far beyond the handful of roles and industries where they originated and are now used by thousands of mid- and low-wage employers -- something that came to light when workers began filing lawsuits challenging the practice. These contract terms have been applied to bank workers, salespeople, dog groomers, police officers, aestheticians, firefighters, mechanics, nurses, federal employees, electricians, roofers, social workers, paramedics, truckers, mortgage brokers, teachers and metal polishers. Legal experts believe stay-or-pay clauses might now be in industries that employ a third of all American workers.
The use of stay-or-pay clauses has grown rapidly over the past decade, and it has seemingly exploded since the start of the pandemic, as companies try to retain workers in a tight labor market. The clauses have spread far beyond the handful of roles and industries where they originated and are now used by thousands of mid- and low-wage employers -- something that came to light when workers began filing lawsuits challenging the practice. These contract terms have been applied to bank workers, salespeople, dog groomers, police officers, aestheticians, firefighters, mechanics, nurses, federal employees, electricians, roofers, social workers, paramedics, truckers, mortgage brokers, teachers and metal polishers. Legal experts believe stay-or-pay clauses might now be in industries that employ a third of all American workers.
Just the way the American oligarchs like it (Score:4, Insightful)
They have you so desperate that you'll sign your life away hoping the job they're underpaying you for won't be too bad.
If you ain't rich, you're disposable.
Re:Just the way the American oligarchs like it (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH, a company won't pay $20k for travel expenses and training to someone who can just quit as soon as they arrive.
If they don't like the deal, they can stay in the Philippines. They don't have a "right" to $20k of someone else's money.
Re: (Score:3)
The question is, did it cost $20,000+ to bring the worker in and train them? And why was it not structured as a loan.
These nurses are in high demand, why did this one pick such a bad deal with Australia and Canada at least having bidding wars on foreign nurses, especially in the Philippines.
Just have someone else pay it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And why was it not structured as a loan.
Well, it kinda is structured as a loan. It's forgiven if you stay but must be repaid if you leave.
These nurses are in high demand, why did this one pick such a bad deal with Australia and Canada at least having bidding wars
I lived in the Philippines and I'm going back there in February.
In my experience, many Filipinos want to come to America because they have relatives here. They are very family-oriented.
The cultural and familial bonds between America and the Philippines are wide and deep.
Re: Just the way the American oligarchs like it (Score:3)
The question is how is something that would be called human trafficcing if structured exactly like this in an another country even legal in usa? They could just you know hire already trained nurses and pay for them. And they would hire these anyway even if they couldn't put 20k debt on them. they just do it because they found a way to describe it with words that seem legal.
Anyway have fun with the 3rd world nurses who'll end up feeling like they're in involuntary employment with some %
Re:Just the way the American oligarchs like it (Score:5, Informative)
questionable as it can create a nursing shortage there.
There is no shortage of nurses in the Philippines.
The nursing schools have way more capacity than needed for domestic demand.
Many of the students are studying nursing specifically for the opportunity to move abroad.
It is also common for foreigners to come to the Philippines to study nursing and then return home with their degree. It's way cheaper, all the classes are taught in English, and the educational standards are the same as in the West.
Re: Just the way the American oligarchs like it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess it depends on where you are. I'm in BC and there is a nursing shortage and it seems the same across Canada. Unluckily the shortage is self reinforcing as the nurses are overworked leading them to burnout and quit.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're missing some point here.
but quit his unsafe, understaffed nursing home job after 14 weeks
Unsafe conditions are to be reported. And understaffed in nursing homes in some states can have your license pulled.
the staffing agency that hired him, promised he would be responsible for 20 to 30 patients, but the reality was more than 40
That's a breach of the contract offered to him. If he signed on for a 20-30 load and regularly got 40, the $20k folks lied to him.
On two occasions, he was the only nurse on his floor, responsible for upward of 80 patients
That's fucking illegal in pretty much every state of the United States.
Fourteen weeks after starting the job, he told A.C.S. he wanted to quit
And this is where we get the technical. ACS is the staffer, not the place he worked at committing all the shitty illegal work conditions. Hopefully he r
So don't quit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Get fired.
THIS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, this is stupid, forcing a employee to stay is just a invite for him to stay at work, but ignoring all requests that they can legally ignore (a nurse may not refuse to give some medical treatment if the it risks the patient life, or may be accused of homicide)
This tries to abuse the good people, that will try to do their work, no matter what. Bad workers would simply laugh and perform even worse. The end result is that USA will train good workers to be give up and fail to do anything useful when they want to leavehttps://slashdot.org/story/23/11/23/1836220/some-firms-are-demanding-steep-repayments-if-staff-depart?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed#
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if these "good people" come here, they need to learn the American way... complain loudly and do as little as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get fired.
I'd suggest following some of the steps in this helpful instructional video. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a deeply religious institution, just dress as the opposite sex. They'll can you faster than thanksgiving yams.
Re:So don't quit. (Score:5, Informative)
If it's a deeply religious institution, just dress as the opposite sex. They'll can you faster than thanksgiving yams.
Well, they could, but then you can sue your employer and would likely win. [aclu.org] The logic is basically that it's still sexual discrimination, since it would be perfectly acceptable to wear the clothes of the opposite sex if you were the opposite sex, therefore you're being discriminated against because you're not the opposite sex.
Re: (Score:2)
See also male bus drivers wearing skirts (approved dress code for female bus drivers) because the summers are too hot for pants.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called a kilt [youtube.com].
Re: So don't quit. (Score:2)
Unlikely that any hospital is deeply religious. Just tell them youâ(TM)ll vote for Trump, theyâ(TM)ll deport you faster than Biden falling over after a speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely that any hospital is deeply religious.
Umm, yeah, about that... [adventhealth.com]
At AdventHealth, Extending the Healing Ministry of Christ is our mission. It calls us to be His hands and feet in helping people feel whole. Our story is one of hope — one that strives to heal and restore the body, mind and spirit.
More than 92,000 skilled and compassionate caregivers in physician practices, hospitals, outpatient clinics, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies and hospice centers provide individualized, wholistic care.
Our Christian mission, shared vision, common values and focus on whole-person health is our commitment to making communities healthier with a unified system: 51 hospital campuses and hundreds of care sites in diverse markets throughout nine states.
That's one of the major hospitals here in central Florida, so yeah, the "deeply religious institution" thing the OP mentioned isn't out of the realm of possibilities when it comes to hospitals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, sign an agreement knowing full well you'll do your best to "shithead" your way out of it.
"Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom." - Aristotle
You'll either make a bad employee, or a good lawyer.
Re:So don't quit. (Score:5, Interesting)
Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.
-- Aristotle
From The Good Place [wikipedia.org], "Tahani Al-Jamil" (s1e3):
Who died and left Aristotle in charge of ethics? [youtube.com]
Chidi: So Aristotle was Plato's student. And Aristotle believes that your character is voluntary, because it's just the result of your actions, which are under your control. For example, right now, you have made the insane choice to ignore the person who is literally trying to save you from eternal damnation.
Eleanor: No, yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm listening. Uh, I just... are we sure we should be paying attention to these guys? It's like, who died and left Aristotle in charge of ethics?
Chidi: [pointing to blackboard] Plato!
Also mentioned by Chidi:
Knowing others is wisdom, knowing yourself is enlightenment.
-- Lao Tzu
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Thank you for posting.
What I was implying was that signing an agreement with no intent to be bound by it says more about the signatory than the document.
Re: (Score:2)
What I was implying was that signing an agreement with no intent to be bound by it says more about the signatory than the document.
Agreed. Breaking your word is (generally) a dick move.
Though I disagree with these sort of conditions/clauses in general as hiring someone always involves some risk that it won't work out, but if the early resignation penalties are limited to, say, actual relocation or further education costs and the like, then I'd be more likely to see then as reasonable as the employee recognizes that the company is spending money to bring them onboard or up-to-speed unrelated to the actual usual performance of the jo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, agreed. I really don't like these clauses either, save for a few caveats. Offers for specific people that include signing bonuses, roles that have large strategic impacts when vacant, these sorts of things might suggest the need for a quitting clause. But some of those occupations in the post strike me as ones where that's an overreach.
Well put.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Finding yourself at an unsafe abusive job may well be a good reason to quit as I doubt the person signed up for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Your straw man is not reasonable. First, without seeing the text of the stipulation, you don't know that it's "abusive". Second, if it is abusive, it probably wouldn't stand up in court. Third, nowhere near all all workplaces have these clauses. Fourth, you can ask to lower or cut the term from the employment contract.
So yes, I stand by my statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like heaven. No annoying neighbors and stay in the basement during work hours to avoid that terrible burning sun.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. Log cabin suggests it's somewhere in a wooded area, so the forest canopy should block out most of the direct sunlight, while a panorama window lets you look at nature whenever you take your eyes off the screen. That'd be heaven for me.
Re: (Score:2)
what is the inverted term for that? from constructive discharge to constructive quitting? Destructive quitting?
Re: (Score:2)
Weird non-sequitor.
I get paid for the output I produce, not for looking pretty.
Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
This practice is extremely close to modern slavery, where the employee works off a large debt which effectively will never be paid off. Now this case is certainly not the same but it's a step along the same road and reputable companies might want to avoid that association.
Re: (Score:2)
This practice is extremely close to modern slavery, where the employee works off a large debt which effectively will never be paid off. Now this case is certainly not the same but it's a step along the same road and reputable companies might want to avoid that association.
It isn't 'slavery'!! Its 'indentured servitude', its different!!!111 Slavery is what the USA has for prisoners.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This practice is extremely close to modern slavery, where the employee works off a large debt which effectively will never be paid off
TFA specifically mentions three different ways this can be illegal depending on the circumstance.
- The amount that has to be repayed can't effectively reduce the employee's pay for the time they worked to being below minimum wage. If his net pay was negative here, then they've run afoul of any applicable minimum wage laws.
- Using the threat of a heavy debt burden is legally considered to be coercion under trafficking laws
- There's already case law that reimbursement clauses must be closely tied to training
Re: (Score:2)
The employee is not compensated when they are laid off so why should the company.
Depends on what you mean and/or if you're thinking more about new hires. I was laid off in June 2017, after 16 years, from a very large defense contractor, and got a rather hefty severance, unused vacation payout, paid medical/dental/vision through the end of that year, then 12 months of medical/dental/vision at the company rate (which was less expensive than the ACA rate). I'm also eligible for a pension (unrelated to my 401k, which I've since rolled over to an IRA).
Negotiate it downwards or away (Score:2)
Your offer of employment is just that - an offer. Some will simply strike the requirement if challenged. But for those who are unwilling to remove it, some will be willing to negotiate it downward.
Some few will do neither - decide what you want to do. But don't just walk away from a position because of it. Poke at it a little.
Should be a big red flag (Score:5, Informative)
It is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It applies to me as a teacher (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand how this is supposed to work. Are you actually paying a fee? How is that a legal employment contract? My wife is a teacher. If she quits any time she forfeits a "good leaver bonus" which is very different to getting a bill.
Re: (Score:3)
18th century Virginia Germanna colonies (Score:2)
Why is this a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
People are being held to the contracts they sign?
Employment contracts are never negotiated by two parties on equal footing. They are universally one sided. In many countries such fees are illegal for this reason. E.g. where I live we have "good leaver bonuses" in our contracts, rather than fees.
No one forced them to sign those contracts.
I suspect you have a trust fund and thus don't need to work for money? Or do you get food and lodging for free? A very significant portion of the people in your country (and others) are not in any position to voluntarily reject a work contract.
Re: (Score:2)
If a company pays out of pocket for some (future) employee that is their own problem. I am not paying the company back for anything, ever, that they did on their own. Just like I'm not paying the company back for "uniform" fees or anything else they are spending "on my behalf". Personally, if I saw that in a contract, I'm walking away. Even if I didn't see it and signed it, I'm still not paying. I'd burn down the business's buildings before I'd pay them. At least then an actual, real legal issue arises.
Depends on state (Score:2)
In California I don't believe such contracts are legal, but in other states it may be.
Missing a Big Point (Score:4, Insightful)
Odds are that person who moved from the Philippines to the US for the job was here on a work visa. Lose the job, then you find another willing to sponsor you fast or back to the PI you go.
People sign these contracts because they're desperate. The US is in the middle of a big shortage of healthcare workers and is aggressively importing them from overseas -- the Philippines is a big source. Unfortunately, we've never had a shortage of scum willing to take advantage of people just to make a buck.
Re: (Score:2)
I only have a job because I am desperate.
If I were wealthy enough to not have to work to live, then I would not work.
Illegal in Europe, I believe (Score:2)
All I have here is a time I have to give notice before I quit. Same for the employer. For that time I still have to work and they still have to pay me (even if they do not want me to work), but that is it. You can, of course, terminate earlier if both sides agree. Of course, if work conditions are unacceptable, I can quit immediately.
This thing from the story is highly immoral.
Re:Illegal in Europe, I believe (Score:5, Informative)
Legal situation at least for France: both the employee and the employer are bound to follow the agreed notice (whose value is set by collective agreements negotiated by the worker's unions). (1) If any party fails to fulfil the notice period, the Labour Court (Conseil de Prud'homme) can force them to pay back to the remaining salaries. (Yes the employee may have to pay an equivalent value of his salary to the employer for the remaining time of the contract.) (2) Additionally in case the employee acted such way *for the purpose of creating a prejudice to the company* then the employer could also sue for damages (e.g. you are the IT person and you decide to quit immediately just as the entire computer system crashed, leaving the company without means to operate the business and no-one else to fix the system, also yelling through the font door as you leave "haha I told you this would happen, now good luck losers").
(1) Explanation from Ministry of Labour of France https://code.travail.gouv.fr/c... [travail.gouv.fr]
(2) analysis of case law (jurisprudence) from Cassation (+/- equivalent to a supreme court): https://www.documentissime.fr/... [documentissime.fr]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, pretty standard. But good luck getting more in damages than the value of the remaining wages.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I am not so shocked with the story here. Maybe USA does not have this provision in their laws, so the employer added it to the contract: if you leave early (before the end of the leave notice), then you have to pay back some months of salaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they prepaid parts of my salary, or in some way advanced me actual money I didn't yet earn, I'm not giving anything back. The company can go fuck itself no matter what country it operates out of.
just do an beavis and butthead at you job! (Score:2)
just do an beavis and butthead at you job!
Fraud nullifies contracts (Score:2)
Assuming he's not lying, if it's an unsafe work environment then that's not what he contracted for. Under US law employees may not have sub-par dangerous work environments. If it's par (coal mines, deep sea diving, etc.) then that's different, but nursing is a standard. Psych hospital nursing is a different standard, etc., commensurate with pay.
If, say, OSHA were to find illegal violations then he can't be held to the contract.
If he just got a better offer elsewhere and made up some BS then, sure, but le
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter, contract is likely not enforceable anyways due to being unfairly lopsided. The employee doesn't get anything out of that clause... if it was for ACTUAL training and certifications that the company paid for that would be one thing. But just saying, you have to pay me $X to quit even though you have nothing tangible that cost the company that much is very VERY likely against contract law. Remember, you can put anything you want into a contract, that doesn't mean it is enforceable though.
The sh
I normally oppose government interference (Score:2)
But in this case, I support making this crap illegal, with significant punishment for those who ignore the law
People need to be free to quit a job that isn't right for them
'Murica is built upon... (Score:2)
Do they really want a lawsuit, though? (Score:2)
One would think that, in the course of a lawsuit, the unsafe and understaffed conditions would come to light. It seems like such clauses might be a bluff.
The beatings will continue until morale improves (Score:2)
It looks like there could be worse fates than being fired for cause. Just speaking for myself, here, but I think if I were being coerced in the manner described, I could probably find some way to make the company regret it had ever heard of me while leaving with no worries about being harassed by them for money. Hey, accidents happen, right?
Things need to change (Score:2)
Garbage. If you cant stay with a job, probably your conscience is bothering you and you need to doing something different. My phone slipped while I was writing this, and the spell checker plugged in âoeUnionâ to my words. But it is not about organized labor, it is about running up against the wall of human conscience. Things need to change. People in power need to be willing to be human and listen to those working for them.
Re: Things need to change (Score:2)
When I was young, I worked night shift at the nursing home. Wiping butts all night, literally cleaning human butts. But it never bothered my conscience, they were helpless and needed it for basic comfort. It is really a low bar to not violate tenets of human decency, but companies somehow cannot rise to it.
get a lawyer (Score:2)
Probably the kind of thing that would disappear with the efforts of an employment lawyer, especially if the company doesn't actually have money involved with onboarding the employee.
if he resigned early (Score:2)
So don't resign, stay home most of the week, come to work drunk as a skunk, don't wash, be rude as hell...
They'll gladly abandon $20.000 to get rid of you.
Cool (Score:2)
Then if you fire me I want an equivalent deal, actually worse because (on average) individuals suffer more intensely when fired than anyone at a company does when someone leaves:
Is this really employment at will? (Score:2)
Employment at will goes both ways. If the employee can't quit yet the employer can still terminate employment, then that isn't employment at will, it is a contract of employment where only one side has the the employment-at-will bug^h^h^h feature. This seems to me to be a one-sided contract, but I'd be surprised if any judge in the United States found it unconscionable. Where do you think the re-election funds come from? A lot of libertarians will say: "You didn't read the contract, so it sucks to be you.
US is such a place (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is one of the more sensible comments compared to some of the rants in this thread.
.
I agree with you. This article sounds like a person trying to "work the system" for pure personal gain, not giving a hoot about the employer.
It is really simple folks.
Always read the contract before you sign it. Perhaps read it more than once and even consult a qualified attorney.
If you don't like the terms of the contract, NEGOTIATE BEFORE YOU SIGN IT, not after you sign it.
If you can't get the contract terms you w
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, better terms and conditions, along with better health and safety standards, would result in people less likely to see your company as nothing more than a tool. In the end, you reap what you sow. If you make foreign workers out yo ve nothing but tools, then don't expect to be treated better.
This obviously has certain limits. Fruit pickers can't be payed significantly more without pricing fruit out of the range of most families. The 5-a-day (strictly speaking, it's 10, they only say 5 because peopl
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution forbids involuntary servitude - if a person no longer wishes to work somewhere, compelling them certainly makes the work involuntary.
Unless they are prisoners. You have a specific exemption for that, so slavery is still practised in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution forbids involuntary servitude - if a person no longer wishes to work somewhere, compelling them certainly makes the work involuntary.
Unless they are prisoners. You have a specific exemption for that, so slavery is still practised in the USA.
Indentured Servitude is what it seems to me; except they are being paid.
Still seems not-right.
Re: Probably going to oblivion for this.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing how or why people are viewing these companies as tools, if they should or shouldn't.
To figure out your options you have to look at what the companies that do this will do, regardless of your moral position of what they should do.
If they're hiring labor abroad, it's probably because it's cheaper than what they would have to pay locally to get someone to do that work.
It doesn't work for them if it costs to get them setup and leave right away. So the only way they'll keep offering to hire overs
Re:Probably going to oblivion for this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
>> People are accepting these crap jobs to get a foot in the door into America and accepting crappy terms
On the other hand, it's pretty difficult to know how crappy a job is when you've only heard about it via email from a third-party recruiter with no incentive to be honest with either the employee or employer.
Re: (Score:3)
>> People are accepting these crap jobs to get a foot in the door into America and accepting crappy terms
On the other hand, it's pretty difficult to know how crappy a job is when you've only heard about it via email from a third-party recruiter with no incentive to be honest with either the employee or employer.
Well typically I'd be very suspicious unless it was a very high quality paying job / company if there was a quit pay penalty, I'd immediately suspect it's a crap job unless it's an auspicious position. This is a universal truth, if any company offers low pay for a job, and has a crap contract, it's a crap job. It's like when service providers try to lock you into 5 year contracts. You know it's a crap deal.
Re: Probably going to oblivion for this.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nursing home nurses make Jack and squat. It's some of the lowest paid worst work out there. Even in an industry that is currently being extremely abused nursing home nurses get abused. Worse they are asked to do far more work than any nurse can safely do and when inevitably there are disasters they take the blame up to and including losing their licens
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get what you're after. I never said it was a good job or abusive, I said here are your options, regardless of the morality of it.
Here are your two realistic solutions. They stop hiring over seas for these positions, and people can no longer use them as a doorway to the USA, or you accept these clauses to discourage people to just use the company as a doorway to the USA and quit shortly after.
You won't force companies to hire overseas and ensure they're good jobs, because you're right, cost of labor is one of them and they have some enforcement such as deportation. Hence gateway to the USA. If they will have to offer the exact wages and prices that American's will do the job for, it's safer and cheaper to hire locally then. That's all. I'm not saying if that's good, or bad, or whatever. Go argue that with someone else. Just telling you how it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Or colonize them and prevent anyone from leaving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People have been hiring cheap labor from overseas from forever. Well, since before America was founded. Illegal migrant workers got hired in the mid century because conservative farmers wanted to hire them. People have been hiring inexpensive nannies and housekeepers from abroad for many decades. This is not a new thing that needs to stop, it's a well established practice used by people from all political stripes. The drawback is that many of these employers do this precisely to avoid accountability, to
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.. I never said they were coming illegally or anything.
It's delusional propaganda to think people are not coming out here to try to live here. The millions of immigrants, illegal and legal disagrees with your statement.
They're not taking these jobs to get a foot in the door; that is just stupid scare tactics by some politicians who themselves hire undocumented workers.
That statement is factually incorrect.
If I lived in one of the countries they're living in, I'd try to do the same thing. Everyone tries to argue like stating the facts is morally objectional and what they're trying to do is morally objectionable. It's not, it's not morally objectionable
Re: (Score:2)
So its not a matter of crappy terms.. because corporate culture/pace/etc... is NOT something that is in terms.. And even things that COULD be terms are usually left a littl
Re: (Score:2)
The these companies are not worried about people trying to get a "foot in the door into the country".. What they are worried about is the loss of "low cost worker" that doesn't want to remain an underpaid/overworked person that essentially got "con'ed" into a job that is slightly above human trafficking.
Okay I mean, it's obvious these guys are actually worried that they're trying to get a foot in the door into the country. It's just not for silly reasons like 'took er jerbs' or something. They're worried that's the reason they're coming to work for their company, because of the reasons you said, because they will invest to get them over there, and lose the low cost worker without breaking evening or benefiting from it.
People really need to realize these are two separate things 'The thing I'm concerned abou
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could try not being such crappy employers that people who have heard of them won't work for them. That way, they can hire more domestically and when they hire foreigners and bring them to the U.S. they won't want to quit right away.
All of this is just an employer trying to hide from the invisible hand of the employment market.
Re: (Score:2)
Well sure but morality aside, what are they going to do? Oh people don't like this thing we're doing to make more money? Okaaay guys...we'll make less money and you can have more.
People keep trying to move this into a morality thing. That's fine, make your decisions on your morals, but forcing companies to behave the way you want doesn't work economically.
What I said still stands
Here are your two realistic solutions. They stop hiring over seas for these positions, and people can no longer use them as a doorway to the USA, or you accept these clauses to discourage people to just use the company as a doorway to the USA and quit shortly after.
In your scenario, they stop hiring overseas for these positions. The reasons? Well maybe they became a good company and offered co
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want people using the companies expenses and resources just as a foot in the door into America and then quitting. It's not worth it for them.
That's not how work visas work. You can't just use a company to get a foot in and then quit. That is a first class ticket to deportation or at the very least being labelled an illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
They quit after they've secure work at another company that has the requirements to prevent them from getting deported.
Re: Probably going to oblivion for this.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Governors and other Fascists fired nurses that had worked tirelessly
Oh now you have a problem with at will employment? Unions and workers protections laws you say, what are those?
Re: Is this a retention bonus? (Score:2)
Sounds more like a training agreement. You import people from the Philippines, they wonâ(TM)t have any training or licenses to actually work here. So the company pays it up front, you go to school while you are employed at a hospital until you are qualified to get a license.
The job is shit, as any doctor or nurse will tell you, school is hard, but not sure what would qualify as âoedangerousâ other than the fact you work with pathogens and needles, but thatâ(TM)s kind of implied as a nurs