Training is an important business investment and like all investments companies expect considerable returns. These returns are sometimes measured in terms of successful implementation of the new skills that actually reflect on business results in terms of quality and productivity. Many companies measure returns in terms of the amount of time that the employee is able to utilize the new skill at work, hence companies require employees to enter into an agreement for the employees to return the investment through service tenure.
There are mixed feelings about this issue of having employees sign training bonds or training agreements. There are employees who understand that the companies deserve to recover their training investments and willingly sign and honor the agreements and there are those who feel that they are being forced to stay in the company even if better opportunities come along and are deprived of these opportunities. I even saw a number of web based fora questioning the legality of training agreements. I'm not a lawyer so I won't dabble into the legality issues of training bonds, I'll just cover what I consider as the moral aspects of it and the administrative responsibilities of HRD to ensure fairness of implementation. If you have a legal opinion on this topic, please share with me and my readers by commenting below.
Before I continue, I want to make myself clear that I support the REASONABLE implementation of training bonds or training agreements simply because I agree that companies must secure the recovery of their training investments. When they send people to training and the employees acquire important skills, they naturally increase their market value. They become attractive to other companies who did not invest a single bit on their skills development but are willing to pay a higher price for their services. Without the training bond the companies who invested in their training may easily lose their money to other companies competing...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document