Companies Are Increasingly Charging Former Employees for Job Training After Quitting

Companies Are Increasingly Charging Former Employees for Job Training After Quitting
Licensed esthetician Simran Bal, who was taken to court by her former employer to repay $1,900 in trainings they required her to attend, poses for a portrait outside the King County District Court in Shoreline, Wash., on Oct. 13, 2022. Bal, whose case was dismissed, says she was already licensed for services the trainings covered. (Reuters/Lindsey Wasson)
Bryan Jung
10/17/2022
Updated:
10/17/2022
0:00

More American companies are charging employees for their own job training if they quit.

At least 10 percent of workers in the United States in 2020 were forced to sign a training repayment agreement by their employers, according to the Cornell Survey Research Institute, in a story by Reuters.

The agreements are termed Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs) by detractors.

Many workers and employee rights advocates in multiple industries have complained to state and federal regulators about former employers charging workers large financial penalties if they quit after training.

However, this practice is beginning to draw some scrutiny from government regulators and Congress, reported Reuters.

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), for example, is looking into proposing a bill next year to rein in these TRAP agreements, a Senate Democratic aide told Reuters.

Local officials like Keith Ellison, Minnesota’s attorney general, is reviewing the regularity of the practice and may push for new state guidance.

Ellison told Reuters that he leans toward opposing mandatory reimbursements for job-specific training, but he may exempt the practice for specific certifications like commercial driving licenses, which are widely recognized as valuable.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has been reviewing the practice since June, according to Reuters.

The Department of Justice and theFederal Trade Commission have received complaints about TRAPs as well.

However, some employers object to federal oversight of mandated training reimbursements.

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) said that the issue was outside the CFPB’s authority because it was not covered under its mandate to review consumer financial products and services.

Some state governments “have authority to regulate employer-driven debt. The CFPB should defer to those governments, which are closer to the people of the states than the CFPB,” said the NFIB to Reuters.

National Nurses United (NNU) told the CFPB that they conducted a survey which found that the agreements are “increasingly ubiquitous in the health care sector.”

New nurses are particularly vulnerable after years of school bills.

There is concern that nurses may be prevented from finding new positions due to the repayments.

The NNU survey found that 589 of the 1,698 respondents were required to take training programs and 326 of them were required to pay back their hospitals if they failed to stay within a specific period.

Many nurses were reportedly not informed about the practice before starting work and that their mandatory training sessions often repeated what they learned in school.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters told Reuters that TRAP agreements were “particularly egregious” to truckers.

The Teamsters accused firms like CRST and C.R. England of charging new truckers more than $6,000 if they leave before a certain time after they receive their licenses.

The American Trucking Association, which represents trucking companies, argued that because a commercial truck driver license is portable from one employer to the next and is required by the government, the CFPB should exempt training reimbursements as employer-driven debt.

Bryan S. Jung is a native and resident of New York City with a background in politics and the legal industry. He graduated from Binghamton University.
Related Topics