To think it’s crazy that a p/t work contract can do this?

[NellesVilla]

Hello!

I'm trying to get a mortgage alone for next year and need additional hours so have accepted a lovely admin job. V easy, pleasant job/workplace, nice hours etc. Extremely low hourly rate but feel this reflects the low pressure and stress. Just outside Brighton.

But…the contract stipulates that if you leave within 6 months (probation) you must pay them £1200 for ”training costs”. Wtaf? Especially when the training is on the job.

I was shocked and worried to read this because to be honest- with my mh issues- I am a flight risk and can’t guarantee I would last this long. I’m concerned I’d be obsessing over the time limit set out for this. Does anyone know for sure these days?!

I’ve already been stung this way in the past. I had a teaching post at a SEN school and upon arrival we were ‘welcomed’ with a £1,000 bonus which was repayable in the event of a resignation witching 3 months. I did indeed resign (and it was the best thing I did- no regrets) but I understood this to be fair as it was an ‘extra’ that I put aside in case I left iyswim.

This £1200 seems like a payment that maybe goes to finding another administrator, maybe? I’m shocked though; that the hourly rate is low, the training is about 15 hours and then you’re liable for this amount if leaving early.

Is this legal, please? Does anyone know?

I agree. The company has done nothing wrong.

@NoSquirrels

I agree, what a strange line of thought if you’re planning to have a job.

You do realise that benefits will not cover or even contribute to mortgage payments if you are not working OP?

With your flight risk I'm not sure a new/larger mortgage is something you should be considering.

Thanks for all the replies. I agree that it’s probably not the best plan to take this job.

I have been worrying all night about the contract and even though I would have no immediate plans to leave the post, I genuinely couldn’t guarantee I wouldn’t within the 6 months. And even if it was discovered that the £1200 penalty wasn’t legally enforceable, I’m the type that would stress and panic about it!

For anyone wondering; as said before I do already work and I do not, nor have I ever claimed benefits.

Thank you for all sensible replies and the straight-talking support. Not so from @Anotherguy, who if is a genuine employer sounds like a bit of an arse tbh. So glad I’ll never work for you mate, as I generally work for women or myself as a self-employed worker. And again- if you really are an employer, not just in your head- I really hope you don’t speak to your employees the way you’ve expressed yourself here.

doubt a company would introduce such a clause if it were illegal

Oh ha ha ha. There are people, employers and other companies trying it on daily. As well as the ones that just think that whatever they write/think must be right.

I do not, nor have I ever claimed benefits.

Indeed. He does indeed sound like an arse to work for.

Not that this is a problem. I have done at times too. No shame, no regrets.

Quite. However this is really a typical MN thread. A bunch of people give all the wrong advice, and continue to do so even after the law has been clearly stated and decide to have a go at an OP based on nothing more than their own (pretty nasty) opinions about the OP's reliability and mental health.

The law is very clear and specific on when and how training contracts are formed, and when they can be enforced, and something like 65% of the opinions expressed on this thread are utterly wrong. But when has facts ever got in the way of a good MN attack on a poster?

I guess it's like when a landlord puts in the contract that you have to let prospective new tenants look around, it doesn't matter if you sign it, it's totally unenforceable because the law says you don't have to!

@Quveas the OP literally says that with her mh issues she is a risk and cannot guarantee she would stay in the job that long..

The link you posted literally contradicts you and confirms what she's stated is legal. 🤦🏻‍♀️

Ffs.

This, and the various other posts on here along these lines, really annoy me. Why do you expect an employee to care about you, when you will sack them without a backward glance if you don't like them. Employees have zero rights against unfair dismissal in the first two years - the system is stacked against them, and even if there is discrimination they have to go to an employment tribunal to prove it. I am not going to accept woe is me from employers!

The ACAS guidance is clear - it relates to training courses. Not on the job training.

Not so!! The link refers to training courses which has been said a million times. The op is talking about on the job training which is different. It’s hard to find links to show things which can’t legally be deducted because there are any number of things, the link explains some very narrow circumstances where training costs can be deducted but this is only for proper specified courses

@fairydustt
Everyone in employment is "a risk". All employers are also "a risk". If a job is s* then I wouldn't guarantee to stay either. You know nothing about her mental health issues. Neither do I. But I don't judge people based on their mental health. Fortunately I'm a recruiter. Sometimes people with NO mental health issues last days or weeks. Thank God some people don't think disability is a barrier to working.

If it's a training course, which they have paid for, they could enforce it.

Companies invest a lot in training people, so these clauses are sometimes inserted. Also known as ROI - Return on investment.

Sometimes the payback is on a sliding scale, depending on when you leave.

If you don't think you'll stay, don't take the job, because with your MH issues, the last thing you want is court proceedings and legal letters being sent to you.

This thread is hilarious the number of people who wilfully will not even try to understand the difference between training courses and on the job training

Legal or not, saying it is having the probable intended consequence by putting off flakey employees that can’t even commit to six months.

It sounds like you’re considering not taking the job. Before you do that I’d recommend negotiating to see if they’ll remove the contract clause. Personally I think it sounds unfair, they might just agree. If they don’t then you can simply withdraw your application. Good luck with whatever you decide to do!

Do you reserve the same vitriol for the MANY "flakey employers" who don't commit to employing someone for two years until they get employment rights??? Or is it only people with mental health problems that you save your vitriol for? AT no point diud the OP say they couldn't commit to six months, they said they couldn't guarantee it. That is the ONLY honest answer anyone could give. If you change jobs tomorrow, can you guarantee that your won't develop a serious health condition the day after, that your parent won't drop dead and you can't cope with work, that you won't develop a previously unknown mental health condition? No you can't. But it is posts like this that make me really wish there was something to karma. Your nastiness really deserves some payback. One day it may be you really needing some advice and I hope you get more understanding that you've shown this poster. But it's easy to be a cowardly keyboard warrior when you don't have to put your name to your appalling behaviour.

I'd play innocent and ask them (in writing, and require a response in writing too) how training is monitored and quantified so this clause can be enforced – e.g. is there a demonstrable cost like the cost of a course/trainer?

To those saying employers wouldn't do things that were illegal: hahahahahahahahaha. I personally could introduce you to about ten people, not including myself, who've either been shafted by companies doing illegal things but getting away with them, or have had to get lawyers involved to explain to them why they are not going to get away with doing illegal things.

Slight detraction from the OP's point, but yes, it's very common, particularly in professional services / consultancy.

It's why training contracts for entry-level roles in the professions are still a thing (although not quite so common as they were in the 90s / early 00s) and why many consultancy firms (the industry in which I work) write fairly high levels of employee attrition into their business plans.

This.

The key thing here is, as others have said, the distinction between training courses, which have an easily identifiable cost, and on the job training. Any cost recuperation needs to be based on actual, reasonably calculated losses to the employer, not just an arbitrary flat cost.

But most relevant in this case is that an employer's recuperation CANNOT leave the employee having earned less than minimum wage.

OP states that she is working part time. Not sure how many hours, but if it's, say 20 hours a week then in six months, she'll have worked about 520 hours. A flat £1200 charge would amount to reducing OP's pay by £2.30 an hour.

OP states that the job is low paid. If it's anywhere less than about £11 or £12 an hour, it is very likely that this charge would take her pay below minimum wage.

OP - if I were you, I'd take the job if you like the look of it and wouldn't worry too much about this clause, as I don't think it would be enforceable. But I would definitely think twice about working for an employer that would exploit their staff in this way.

It does seem odd that the sum is not for tangible training costs i.e. a particular course or event.

Beyond that it's not too unusual. Most places don't enforce.

Don’t think I’ve done my update, but for those interested, I’ve pulled away from the job offer. I couldn’t reconcile this penalty in my mind. It’s a ridiculous amount of money for a part time job of 10 hours a week for £12 per hr. As I said there were no training courses, solely a bit of online training which I’m sure wouldn’t have cost them £1200, even taking into account the wages of the trainer/existing member of staff paid.

I think it’s unethical to have certain clauses for a fairly unskilled part time role and I couldn’t respect such a greedy company. Additionally the contract said that you’d be expected to cover other staff in sickness/holiday etc and at other clinics. As someone on the ASD spectrum I wouldn’t want such surprises spring on me. I know this would overwhelm me, plus it was not mentioned at the interview.

As a self-employed person (for well over a decade) the tax man knows how much I earn on average so it’s not like I’m a recent convert to self-employment. I just want an additional role that is PAYE to give me a bit more income (obvs!) and a bit more of a steady pay cheque to throw into the mix. Onwards and upwards!

• sprung, not spring