SINGAPORE: A local employee has turned to the internet for advice after discovering that resigning from his current job may cost him the equivalent of two months’ salary.
In a post on the r/asksg subreddit, the worker shared that he is thinking about switching to a new role that promises a modest salary boost. He explained that two companies have already lined up interviews for him. “Company A has a 25% increase bump, while Company B has about 40-45% increase bump,” he wrote.
Unfortunately, just as he was getting hopeful about his prospects, he found out that his current employment contract includes a clause requiring him to pay training compensation equal to two months of his salary if he resigns within a year.
Caught off guard by this discovery, he asked the online community, “Is this generally okay? I only got very simple training on basic tasks. No certification, assessments, or training plan. Has anyone experienced this issue before?”
“It’s reasonable for them to want to recoup training costs.”
In the comments, one Singaporean Redditor pointed out that although the company may try to enforce the two-month payment because it is stated in the contract, the employee still has grounds to challenge it.
“In your defence, you could argue that the ‘training’ they provided was so rudimentary that the two months’ salary would be unreasonable and unjust. You could counter that the company should prove why the ‘training’ they provided is worth two months of your salary,” the Redditor said.
“And since they don’t seem to have a structured training program and no evidence of training, testing, and certification…I believe they would be hard-pressed to provide evidence.”
Another Redditor, who said they were a former manager, also weighed in. They explained that such training-repayment clauses are only enforceable if the employer “actually spent money” on the training or if the employee genuinely received the training stated in the contract.
If no real training took place, the employer would have no actual cost to recover and therefore no valid reason to charge the “two months’ salary” stated in the agreement.
Others, however, disagreed and said that the company has the right to demand compensation. “It’s reasonable for them to want to recoup training costs if you’ve served less than the period of time for them to get ROI,” one wrote.
“I’ve seen before in public hospitals where they will ask you to pay back the vaccinations they’ve given you if you leave during the probation period.”
Another commented, “This is very okay. When companies invest in you, they expect a certain ROI on their investment. E.g., when I pay for my staff’s driving license, I would expect them to serve a bond so I recoup the expense through their potential contributions to the company.”
In other news, a man who recently returned to the dating scene after years of hiatus was stunned when his date grilled him about his financial background.
In a Reddit post titled “Dating expectations imposed on a guy or girl,” he shared that his date didn’t just ask about his job or hobbies but went straight into questions about his “finances, social status, and even why he hadn’t offered to pay for her friends’ meals.”
