Training Bonds. Are employees really liable to this kind of agreement??

[sixelacat]

Our country was molded to exercise democracy. We have what we call involuntary servitude, and our country protects its citizens as well as aliens against such. The Bill of Rights for example provides on its first section that no person shall be deprived of his/her liberty. Liberty as stated in the Constitution is not limited to jail or illegal detention, it may also include the right of another to refuse anything he doesn't want to do. Every agreement made must still be in accordance to our existing laws, and if it doesn't its good as nothing.

[esprugodoys]

bitaw sah.. now that you bring this topic in the open.. i wonder pud if approve by PHIL Govt bah?? sakot ang point sa compny ., as to y nag implemnt sila.. but thennn.. ang pangutan appprove kaya or legal kaha?? hmm

that's what makes me curious as well.. and if the company where to say that they wont get any profit from an employee if he/she decides to jump to a different company in just a few days/weeks/months from training, then would the company still make any profit out from an employee who doesn't the performance metrics required?

if that happens, then eventually termination would still be the next sanction the employee gets. isn't that a bit ironic?

[esprugodoys]

Our country was molded to exercise democracy. We have what we call involuntary servitude, and our country protects its citizens as well as aliens against such. The Bill of Rights for example provides on its first section that no person shall be deprived of his/her liberty. Liberty as stated in the Constitution is not limited to jail or illegal detention, it may also include the right of another to refuse anything he doesn't want to do. Every agreement made must still be in accordance to our existing laws, and if it doesn't its good as nothing.

this is mainly what i think is contradicting to this "training bond" agreement. i can't find any liberty on such as it is "forcing" an employee to serve the company for a specific amount of time like what is post below by a fellow istoryan.. 1 - 2 yrs.. that's crazy.

[pinkavaya]

so far nag search ko sa phil labor law.. pero wala jud ko naka kita pa nga legal ning "training bond".. pero if naa moy nahebaw-an.. truth shall set you free

[johnnyblues]

if you sign it, it's legal. simple as that.

[fingolfin]

if you sign it, it's legal. simple as that.

.. i guess so. Even if it's not in the Labor Law, the company has the previlige to make their own laws and regulation to protect their own sanctity. It's a contract, you signed it, meaning you agreed to it and you should respect it and uphold what's in the contract.

[miasongskie]

bitaw, that is true.

[esprugodoys]

.. i guess so. Even if it's not in the Labor Law, the company has the previlige to make their own laws and regulation to protect their own sanctity. It's a contract, you signed it, meaning you agreed to it and you should respect it and uphold what's in the contract.

i understand the idea and thank you for that.. but does that hold the liberty of an employee? say that you are desperate in need of job, then luckily you land on one that has this training bond. of course, the needs comes first so you signed just to get a job and survive.. what if...... time comes that you find another company that gives you better compensation, better benefits, better working environment which you really are comfortable with?

practically speaking, if i were in that scenario i would certainly move to that company which i think mostly of the employees will most likely do as well.... but with training bonds.. employees are "forced" to stay and work with the company that they no longer are happy with...

[fingolfin]

.. i understand what you mean. And i'm with you against this very very long training bond, two years is just too much. Training bonds should be just two or three months of force servitude to the company, after that you're free to go.

[skout]

if you don't like it don't sign.. simple!!!