The nature of the agreement is that if my friend bolts before the 18
months are up, he will have to pay back the pro-rated value of the
training. If they spend $60,000 to train him, and he leaves at 1 year,
he has to pay back $20,000. (That's how he explained it to me.)
The one thing I discussed with him is that there might be companies
willing to fork over that kind of bonus at the beginning of 1999. He's
more concerned that if he says he's going to go 18 months, he's going to
do it, even if he gets offered $250,000. He puts more value on his word
than money (though, obviously, he likes both). He would only bolt in
the event of TEOTWAWKI. He just doesn't want to sign up there and then
start seeing rates for PCWNs going to $100,000+. He'd then end up with
a sunken forhead (from slapping himself there, going "DOH!")
This decision would have been a no-brainer for him about 1-2 years ago!
The timing is just all wrong now. It's the summer of 1999 that looms
big, and even if the world isn't totally screwed up by then, will Oracle
be that valuable a thing to add to his resume, vis a vis the stuff he
already has (C++/Informix).
> What is the nature of this alleged 'commitment' - legally speaking? A
> employment agreement/contract takes certain legal binding
> clauses/conditions for it to mean anything at all - duration of the job as
> per the agreement being one of those clauses/conditions; the other being
> remuneration, etc..
> In order for it (the agreement) too stick - legally speaking - in a court
> of law, the employer must enumerate what the employee must do - in detail -
> to hold up there end of any such agreement/deal - to perform.
> If the employer, for instance reneges on their part of the agreement - and
> the employee does everything on their part of the agreement function
> wise(as listed int he agreement) then the employee has a right to sue and
> win for lost wages for the period of time lost.
> More is required - and must be required by your friend but this is good for
> starters. A good lawyer will fill out the rest of the details.
> So if this employer is not willing to provide all the details for a iron
> clad agreement; your friend can take off anytime s/he wishes to do so.
> Meaning they work 'for hire' and may terminate any unwritten
> 'understanding'/agreement as may the employer. Both may terminate "at
> If no legally binding written agreement, **in fact, exists between your
> friend and the prospective employer the relationship is "at will" and your
> friend can take the job - take the training - and anything else they may
> offer or provide - and take a new job with a better paying employer - "at
> From a business point of view, if an employer is asking a prospective
> employee to take a future 'hit' financially then it makes sense that that
> employer should be willing to pay a "premium" for the increased risk to the
> prospective employee - in the form of written guarantees,.
> Some one has already pointed out that no particular 'premium' is being paid
> for this increased risk.
> The above is merely my personal opinion and should not be construed as
> providing legal advice. I am not a attorney and your friend should seek
> one out for legal advice.
> Regards, -= Lou Rizzuto =-
> > > A friend of mine was just contacted by a headhunter with an offer to
> > > contract at a Fortune 100 company. It is for $75,000 a year, with full
> > > bennies, to do Informix maintenance, but the company is moving to