• Introversion@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    Or they could, you know, treat employees well so they don’t want to leave? Just a thought.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s quite literally indentured servitude.

    I want a list of publicly traded companies doing this so that I can short their stocks.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    FYI for Texas residents: Texas is an “at will” state which means that your employer can fire you at any time. It also means that you can quit any time. Contracts like this are unenforceable and illegal in Texas. It is also illegal to hire somebody as a 1099 contractor and have that person fulfill a full time job. The only way that a contract like this is enforceable in Texas is via a corp-to-corp contract in which you, the contractor, start your own company and that company enters into a legally binding contract with the employer. If you choose to do that, I recommend opening a c-corp, not an LLC, specifically for that contract (assuming it’s worth it). If you decide to quit, and they decide to sue your corporation, just dissolve it and let them go fuck themselves.

    Texas has a lot of problems but it does a good job of protecting the ability to do business with minimal shenanigans.

    EDIT: The Texas Workforce Commission is nothing to fuck with.

    • bluGill@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure all states have a variation of this. However you need to go to court to enforce it and that us expensive and difficult enough even if you win such as to scare people from trying .

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is true in most states. Also of note this is not related to right to work which is an anti union law (I live in an at will state without right to work)

  • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m thinking, better write your state reps if this isn’t illegal in your state yet.

    PS: employers, go ahead and keep pushing us and pushing us. The more desperate people get, and the harder you put their backs to the wall, the more unions we get and the more worker protections we will restore.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      When the US doesn’t have such a huge military with all the fancy toys, petrodollar, world.reserve currency, etc. that is, when the US loses signicant power.

      • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can you imagine the US Post-collapse Nuremberg style trials, where the international community is finally able to address all the horrors that have been committed against them? A man can dream…

  • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    A typical stay-or-pay clause is called a training-repayment-agreement provision (TRAP)

    NO FUCKING WAY it’s actually called a TRAP unironically. Which timeline is this I want to disembark.

  • TubeTalkerX@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Back in 1992 I applied for a job with the Los Angeles Police Department. One thing you needed to agree on was similar to this, stay with the LAPD for 5 years or pay them $60,000 in training and “other” expenses. I was told they do this so people don’t quit as soon as they get a job with Hollywood (Actor, writer, etc.).

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The article talks about how these sorts of contracts have to be tied directly to training costs to be legal. In the first example in the article the contract didn’t specify an amount and didn’t tie it to, really, anything. So it was legally like coercing someone to stay and work according to the lawyer that took the case.

      • PixTupy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        In my country companies are forced to give a certain amount of hours of free training a year to employees or they pay heavy fines.

        They usually fill it up with compliance training bullshit though.