The training costs are not the craziest part of this claim from my perspective: The Skin and Cancer Institute was trying to make her repay US$38,000 in training costs and more than US$100,000 for “loss of business” caused by the company’s inability to transfer Ms Lakey’s responsibilities to someone new.
They we’re probably paying a fraction of that as a salary and then want to hold the employee accountable that they can’t find a replacement. Crazy world…
After she gave 4 months notice, too.
I would let myself become destitute before I paid that.
Easier said than done. Have you ever been homeless? I have and it’s really horrible.
Well if you’re being forced to repay $138,000 good chance you go destitute anyway. May as well fuck em over for it
But yeah I know easier said than done realistically unless someone is willing to support you.
Next up, cue the employers complaining that nobody wants to work. This is modern indenture.
I’d prefer to understand the terms here before meeting judgement. The article intentionally avoids the topic by bringing up a point related, but not saying that happened here and then points out what sometimes happens in other places. I do not trust this piece.
Many times these agreements are quite fair (see what I did there).
This is the straitstimes trying to piss off the American electorate
I don’t know why OP posted that website instead of the actual source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/27/business/training-repayment-agreement-debt.html
my guess is it’d be that paywall on that link you posted
Because the NYT is an extremely overrated pro-establishment shit show? 🤷
Considering its function is to protect the establishment, I question the characterization of its being overrated.
That’s mostly true, but some people who aren’t generally that pro-establishment themselves still see it as inherently trustworthy and politically left of center even though it’s neither. I blame MSM being an invariably pro-establishment circlejerk.
Right. I am only adding that its efficacy would diminish if it represented itself as pro-establishment.
Those who understand its function as pro-establishment, and those who are not concerned, are the two groups that are least consequential.
It is third, which you mentioned, who are most relevant, the ones who may be most easily influenced toward an effect that is substantial overall
And posting their content on another website improves that?
It deprives them of the traffic and thus ad revenue that reading it directly on their site would give them, yes
They might file a complaint against us, seeking lost revenue to be paid as damages.
They can go right ahead and try 😄
I doubt we stand a chance, against the narrative that corporations are victims of a lack of industriousness and frugality among the working class.
