Help!!!
lnelson
670 Posts
We are offering an out of state person to come to work for us and we are paying the moving expense up to $3000. We are at-will is there a way to word something to state some type of contract as far as must work 1 yr with company or must repay moving expense cost and NOT jeopardize the at-will.
This is the first time we have had this situation. PLEASE HELP of course I need this ASAP.
This is the first time we have had this situation. PLEASE HELP of course I need this ASAP.
Comments
Just as if you offered someone tuition reimbursement. Employee must remain employed for two years following their final reimbursement payment otherwise the full cost of tuition will need to be repaid in full by XYZ date.
If you stated that he is contracted to work for you for a minimum of one year in which time you promised him a set salary, moving cost, etc. then you would negate the at will.
But just for good measure, why don't you throw in a claus on his moving agreement that after one year of employment the employee will no longer be liable to repay moving expenses, however this does not guarantee continued employment for the period of one year. XYZ, Inc. is an at will employer and either party can terminate the employment relationship at any time with or without cause or notice.
This is not a restriction of movement, just a consequence of movement. They are perfectly free to quit and move if they like. They just repay the moving expenses or have it deducted from a final check or both. Restricting movement would be having a clause that says someone CANNOT leave your employ until the passage of an amount of time or that they MUST remain employed a certain amount of time after you educate them.
Disclaimer: This suggestion may not fly in the state of California. This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion, based on 37 years of HR experience. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.
My company (in CA) has a relocation agreement for 2 years, stating that if the employee chooses to leave the company for any reason they will have to pay back a prorated portion of the relocation benefit. Logically, I still see this as "at-will". If I choose to leave (my will), part of the consequences of my decision is to pay back the money I received as this benefit, just as losing my health benefits would be another consequence if I chose to leave.
Maybe I read you wrong, could you clarify for me please?
Either employee can sever the relationship, at will. If the employer does, it relocates the ee and if the ee does, he pays the company back all or part of the original relocation package.
Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.
If we require a payback, we put this in the form of a promissory note which we have found is easier to collect on.
Healthcare workers are notorious for collecting signon bonuses and then wanting to leave and not pay them back before their time commitment is fulfilled. These were very popular in our area a few years ago, but because of the hassle and expense of trying to collect them from employees, they have pretty much fallen out of favor unless the employee is willing to sign a promissory note.
Our experience in getting former EEs to fork over repayment of debts to the ER (such as repayment of tuition assistance-- which we require if the EE leaves before completing a 2 yr service requirement) after leaving is pretty dismal.
Of course, we have decided not to get nasty about these collections-- we don't turn these debts over collection agcies or rat non-payers out to the credit bureau. We've decided that collecting the $$ is just not worth the negative word-of-mouth that this would generate on the street.
Beyond this, there is a practical problem. I think employees stay with an employer because they like their job, the money, the people they work with, the company etc. etc. not because they signed a piece of paper agreeing to stay for two years or they will forfeit the money. I suppose one could look at all the successes and say that those agreement sure work - no one has left within the specified time frame, but I don't think that it is the piece of paper that caused that. In reality, the only time this will become an issue is if 1) there is an agreement for a specified time, 2) the employee turns in notice before the time arrives, 3)the employer reminds the employee of the agreement, 4)the employee leaves anyway, 5)the employer decides that they want to retain an employee who doesn't want to be there and goes to court to enforce the agreement or recover the $$. By then, the legal expenses will be more than the $$ invested in relocation
expenses.
Finally, regarding the original post and the $3,000 expense, I don't know what would be a reasonable time frame to expect an employee to stick around if you decide to do that. Is $3,000 two weeks wages, less? I don't think it is reasonable to expect an employee to stick around for a year so that you can recover the equivalent of a couple of weeks of pay. Maybe the expection that they will give you two weeks notice is all you could expect and they will probably give you that, or more, anyway.
That's my opinion, and remember, this is California. Things can be very different elsewhere.
That may not be an attracitve package or an incentive to make the move, but if the employer is so worried about losing only 3K to move this guy, he obviously isn't at the top of the food chain. No diss on your company, but that is a very tiny relo package or it's one squeezed out to a canidate whose position you weren't planning on relocating.
Anyway - just curious how CA law would handle the situation if it were on a reimbursement basis.
Disclaimer: This message is not intended to offend or attack. It is posted as personal opinion. If you find yourself offended or uncomfortable, email me and let me know why.