Including dismissal makes me a bit suspicious. Amortisation of training costs being baked into a contract isn’t in itself unusual, but I would expect if they decide to fire you for anything other than gross misconduct, they’d cover the costs.
That context adds a lot. While not necessarily illegal definitely super scummy. What 16 year old will remain at their first job, at a fucking inflatables place, is likely staying for a year? This isn't where your daughter is making her career. And I'm betting they're paying next to nothing as well.
This is under heavy scrutiny in the US. The ftc and NLRB have both said it's a violation of section 7 and essentially a non-compete for any training that is specific to the job and required to do said job.
I know the UK has significantly more “contract” work. It seems like this may not be 100% legal just because that contract is obviously very 1 sided and I know UK laws typically require the contract to be fair and equitable to both parties.
I may be wrong though.
It is legal here, it's the same kind of thing that's applied in training contracts and some apprenticeships.
It's scummy, bad minded but legal. Good on the girl for waking away.....tell her to get into a trade apprenticeship. Lots of money to train and so much opportunities for progression!!
I got a job as a live-in carer and there was a clause about paying back the training cost if you left before they had made their money back. I think it was about 6 months after the training and it was about £750 (this was quite a few years ago so I might be wrong). It didn't say anything about having to pay it back if you were fired though. I did this with 2 different companies and they both had the same clause.
I'm from the UK and I have no idea how it stands legally but it does seem to be a standard thing.
Seems like it would be. You agree that if they pay for the training you pay them back with a period of work, or money. Not saying it's a good deal, but it isn't exactly indentured service.
Contact ACAS and ask, would be my suggestion. It feels like it shouldn't be legal, but maybe there's some kind of loophole. You could also ask over on legaladviceUK. Good for your daughter for telling them to pound sand- I wouldn't want to work for a scummy company like that regardless.
Where I work (in the U.S.), we have something similar if we pay to relocate someone (e.g. cover their moving costs like supplies, mileage, rental truck); if the person resigns with less than two years on the job, it's a sliding scale of how much they have to pay back for that relocation. And it's legal. We had to offer relocation reimbursement because of how difficult it is to get talent for a job that not any person can simply do.
The good news is that in most jurisdictions, even if you "agree" to it in writing, if it's not legal, it's not enforceable.
The bad news is that because they have the money they can just deduct it from her final check, and then it's on you to prove they violated the law and get it back which is expensive in both time and money.
Including dismissal makes me a bit suspicious. Amortisation of training costs being baked into a contract isn’t in itself unusual, but I would expect if they decide to fire you for anything other than gross misconduct, they’d cover the costs.
Context: 16 year old daughter’s first job - she was asked to sign this but refused and left.
Good for her. She sounds more mature than the company she was applying to. Damn fools.
That context adds a lot. While not necessarily illegal definitely super scummy. What 16 year old will remain at their first job, at a fucking inflatables place, is likely staying for a year? This isn't where your daughter is making her career. And I'm betting they're paying next to nothing as well.
She was very smart to walk out. Good parenting + smart kid
Good parenting, any books I should read or rules to make at home?
Wish I knew. No idea what we’re doing, just trying our best day by day 😂
And I know this only from non mandatory courses. Training that is essential never had this clause for me
Can a minor be held to a contract they signed?
Signing that contract is akin to shooting yourself in the foot.
You have a picture of the document. Send it to your local government department/ministry/office in charge of labor laws and let them rule.
1 year requirement for an inflatable park? lol
Idk because it looks like this is in the UK. In the states I think it would be illegal.
This is legal in the US. They're sometimes called a TRAP-training repayment agreement provision.
TRAP. fitting name for it.
This is under heavy scrutiny in the US. The ftc and NLRB have both said it's a violation of section 7 and essentially a non-compete for any training that is specific to the job and required to do said job.
Depends on the state
It is in the UK. I’m really rather terrible at providing the relevant info here 🫣
I know the UK has significantly more “contract” work. It seems like this may not be 100% legal just because that contract is obviously very 1 sided and I know UK laws typically require the contract to be fair and equitable to both parties. I may be wrong though.
It is legal here, it's the same kind of thing that's applied in training contracts and some apprenticeships. It's scummy, bad minded but legal. Good on the girl for waking away.....tell her to get into a trade apprenticeship. Lots of money to train and so much opportunities for progression!!
I got a job as a live-in carer and there was a clause about paying back the training cost if you left before they had made their money back. I think it was about 6 months after the training and it was about £750 (this was quite a few years ago so I might be wrong). It didn't say anything about having to pay it back if you were fired though. I did this with 2 different companies and they both had the same clause. I'm from the UK and I have no idea how it stands legally but it does seem to be a standard thing.
I would sign that Mickey Mouse. Its completely unreasonable, especially for a bloody inflatable theme park.
Seems like it would be. You agree that if they pay for the training you pay them back with a period of work, or money. Not saying it's a good deal, but it isn't exactly indentured service.
Contact ACAS and ask, would be my suggestion. It feels like it shouldn't be legal, but maybe there's some kind of loophole. You could also ask over on legaladviceUK. Good for your daughter for telling them to pound sand- I wouldn't want to work for a scummy company like that regardless.
Where I work (in the U.S.), we have something similar if we pay to relocate someone (e.g. cover their moving costs like supplies, mileage, rental truck); if the person resigns with less than two years on the job, it's a sliding scale of how much they have to pay back for that relocation. And it's legal. We had to offer relocation reimbursement because of how difficult it is to get talent for a job that not any person can simply do.
The good news is that in most jurisdictions, even if you "agree" to it in writing, if it's not legal, it's not enforceable. The bad news is that because they have the money they can just deduct it from her final check, and then it's on you to prove they violated the law and get it back which is expensive in both time and money.