Training costs Arbitration
46 RepliesJump to last post
Does anyone have experiance with going to arbitration on training costs, and if you do what was it, and what was the outcome?
Thank you
[quote=usacav]
Does anyone have experiance with going to arbitration on training costs, and if you do what was it, and what was the outcome?
Thank you
[/quote]
If you signed a contract agreeing to pay back training costs if you leave, pay them their damned money. Why should others shoulder YOUR burden? What's so great about you? GTFOOH with crap.
[quote=jokeriswild]
BH:
You’ve got to quit being so encouraging to other posters.
[/quote]But what makes BH wrong?
Whether or not the training is worth anything is a moot point when the
individual in question has signed a contract or agreement. I hate to find
myself in the position of defending these companies’ inflated estimates of
the worth of their training, but a deal, when all is said and done, is a deal.
For $50, he can borrow a uniform from a McDonald’s employee and show up
at the arbitration…just a suggestion.
Plenty of people sign agreements…doesn’t mean squat. My suggestion is to
have a great offense.
I just saw The Pursuit of Happyness. Only Wall Street can “hire” talented
people and not pay them.
[quote=jokeriswild]
BH:
You've got to quit being so encouraging to other posters.
[/quote]
No.
[quote=skeedaddy2]
Plenty of people sign agreements…doesn’t mean squat. My suggestion is to
have a great offense.
[/quote]
Now THERE’S a perfect example of the lack of honor so prevalent in the
business world, and in society at large.
Does giving your word and your personal honor mean nothing? The answer,
it would seem, is obvious.
Interpretation of the written word is the key to our legal system. Otherwise,
we wouldn’t need lawyers now would we?
You probably carry a short samurai sword on you ready to commit hari kari
to preserve your honor? Don’t make me laugh.
Let’s all yield and praise to the most honorable among men, Philo Kvetch.
Hari Kiri? NEVER!
Who would protect my clients from those whose word means nothing?
(If the shoe fits, wear it!)
Philo,
This is one of the instances where I have to disagree with you slightly.
This Jones Training contract, for most of those who sign it, is BS.
Why?
Because Jones enters into the contract with you from a position of trust, with a bunch of misinformation if not flat out lies. Verbal information given by Jones and their advisors leading up to the contract plays a strong hand in the reason many people sign on. This in my humble opinion should make the contract void.
[quote=gad12]
Philo,
This is one of the instances where I have to disagree with you slightly.
This Jones Training contract, for most of those who sign it, is BS.
Why?
Because Jones enters into the contract with you from a position of trust,
with a bunch of misinformation if not flat out lies. Verbal information given
by Jones and their advisors leading up to the contract plays a strong hand in
the reason many people sign on. This in my humble opinion should
make the contract void.
That may well be Gad, but it begs the eternal question: Can you prove it to
a court?
[quote=rrbdlawyer]
Guys:
You might want to re-read this article I wrote a while back http://registeredrep.com/mag/finance_free_training_cost/
As a former RR and as an industry lawyer for most of the last quarter of a century, let me just express a personal opinion on this issue. I have no problem whatsoever with an employer seeking repayment of all legitimate training expenses HOWEVER the touchstone here is that the expenses must be reasonable. It is simply absurd to believe that any BD is truly expending $75,000 plus to train a newbie. First off, most of those expenses are absurdly inflated. For example, a training booklet may be valued at $100 when it is nothing more than a copy made at five cents a page. Additionally, you may be told that some high-priced industry consultant was paid $500 an hour to conduct a class and you are being asked to repay that cost--except there were ten folks in the class and your basis, at most, should only be $50.
Similarly, there is the issue of whether there should be a fixed production point at which no payment is required---for example, once you produced $25,000 in gross commissions the repayment is waived. After all, doesn't every hire include some element of risk for both the employer and employee? Is it fair to simply shift all of that risk (monetarily) onto the employee because the job just didn't pan out? Sure, many folks simply get a better job and look to leave--but do any of you really think that the generic training is of such value as to constitute a significant detrment to the employer?
At the end of the day, let's get to the bottom dollar. They sue you for $75,000 but often take $5,000 in settlement. That says it all.
[/quote]
Philo, no, of course it would be near impossible to prove what was "said" in court. However, the point, and the one made above by rrbdlawyer shed a little light on the argument that those of us who try to get out of/and or reduce these costs are dishonorable cheats.
[quote=rrbdlawyer]
Guys:
You might want to re-read this article I wrote a while back
http://
registeredrep.com/mag/finance_free_training_cost/
As a former RR and as an industry lawyer for most of the last quarter of
a century, let me just express a personal opinion on this issue. I have no
problem whatsoever with an employer seeking repayment of all legitimate
training expenses HOWEVER the touchstone here is that the expenses
must be reasonable. It is simply absurd to believe that any BD is truly
expending $75,000 plus to train a newbie. First off, most of those
expenses are absurdly inflated. For example, a training booklet may be
valued at $100 when it is nothing more than a copy made at five cents a
page. Additionally, you may be told that some high-priced industry
consultant was paid $500 an hour to conduct a class and you are being
asked to repay that cost–except there were ten folks in the class and
your basis, at most, should only be $50.
Similarly, there is the issue of whether there should be a fixed
production point at which no payment is required—for example, once
you produced $25,000 in gross commissions the repayment is waived.
After all, doesn’t every hire include some element of risk for both the
employer and employee? Is it fair to simply shift all of that risk
(monetarily) onto the employee because the job just didn’t pan out? Sure,
many folks simply get a better job and look to leave–but do any of you
really think that the generic training is of such value as to constitute a
significant detrment to the employer?
At the end of the day, let’s get to the bottom dollar. They sue you for
$75,000 but often take $5,000 in settlement. That says it all.
QUOTE]
So rather than firms setting the value of the training, we should let
lawyers hash it out.
Oh yeah.
Much better.
No, just do the honorable thing and write them a check for $75,000 for
something that costs $5,000
[quote=skeedaddy2]No, just do the honorable thing and write them a check for $75,000 for
something that costs $5,000 [/quote]
You're forgetting their opportunity cost of being able to recover more than $75,000, had he not turned out to be a loser that couldn't hack it.
Skee, I find the $75,000 price tag as objectionable as you do. Further, from
what I’ve seen and been told of the Jones training, they’re the last firm that
should be charging top dollar for their training. Still, the time to negotiate is
before the signature is on the line that is dotted (with apologies to Alec
Baldwin).
B Hull,
Of all the poster's on this site, you sound like the biggest loser. If you're looking for a new job, forget about couseling, you probably wouldn't have success there either. Everything you write is trying to smack someone down. Does this make you feel like a big man? Are you even in the industry or do you just hang around this site because you have nothing better to do?, especially seeing that you have made almost 7 posts per day since you joined. Grow up and go away!!