Source
r/PinoyProgrammer•
ProgrammAndRecruit

Employment/training bonds, to accept or not?

advice

Moderators do not remove this post or ask me to move it to random discussions. This topic has been escalating in my network and we don't want to start normalizing bonds in the future, don't we?

The answer is simple actually. DO NOT ACCEPT A JOB IF THERE'S AN EMPLOYMENT or TRAINING BOND! Sure that's the only job you can get now and you could argue that if there is another offer without one, you'd reject this in a heartbeat.

But please, if you accept in one. Don't complain or ask how to now pay the penalties. BTW, this isn't about how you can go away not paying them any, but it's a matter of wasting your time and tenure because you can't get your exit documents without paying. Not only you wasted 1 year in that company, but also in a roadblock to include the company in your CV since you can't show a COE. Oh wait, you can fake one by asking it for bank or travel purposes.

With 77Global, etc., back hunting for applicants, a most fresh graduates and career shifters don't know how notorious they are about this. Can't blame them for not knowing of the modus/scheme, but rather is the lack of eagerness to validate the company that concerns me most here.

Going back to the topic. Some would then say, but what if the penalty is 100k, but it can be paid out in 3 months (after all expenses). Would the bond mean nothing? Sure, then again you could have spent the same 100k on other things or should I say the same materials for possibly half the price.

Posted Feb 4, 2023, 7:08 PM UTC

1134
Forward-632146KP•

I would like to disagree because of this black-and-white thinking you in particular always have with bonds.

As a disclaimer, my first job had a bond where I learned a lot. I did not waste my time there and I did learn a lot. I wasn't really fond of the idea of job hopping either, bond or without bonds, so the idea of salary did not matter as much. On top of this, management was kind and there were varied opportunities to learn in several areas.

The topic of bonds may be iffy for some because it is an actual time commitment spanning months and even years. But I will disagree with your view that all bonds are bad. Leave it to the applicant too to have some due diligence on the topic. Work for a shit company, and you will get treated like shit. Work for an actually good company, bonds with or without, and time will fly by.

I will have to agree with the fact that some companies are predatory. But, again, due diligence

13
peetatoes•

Same opinion on my end. I also came from a company with training bond but I never saw it as something negative. The company itself help me with my growth and gave me knowledge on various fields.

2
ProgrammAndRecruitOPrecruiter•

If your training turned out well and you got a good/pleasant working culture, good for you. But let me challenge you to place your shoes on those who accepted a bond but whose employer or working culture is trash (frequent overtime, etc.), would you just continue until the bond expires or find ways to get out of the bond? And how would you get out of the bond "without" paying anything but able to have your exit clearance checked?

Sure you can do your due diligence about the company and the agreement you'd be signing to. But there are events that you just can't control (ie. change of management, etc.)

-4
peetatoes•

Overtime as long as it's paid is fine. For those you're mentioning having frequent overtime and all, as long as it is paid is all fine. I've also experienced the same since the company I've worked with is an outsourcing company. We worked overtime multiple times due to prod bugs as well as for catching up to due dates. Its just on how you would thrive on that situation, also to take those experiences with you since all those challenges will back you up once you go job hunting again.

For the bond, I had a senior where he's only into 1 year of his 3 year bond but proceed to resign since he got a better offer. He paid off the remaining two years bond and now is on a better place with his career.

You weight out all your options always. Bond is always not a bad thing or so, just make sure you read out all the details and understand the contract.

If I've been in a bad environment or so, I'll just continue to work all through out the bond and resign as soon as its done. I'll make sure I learn from every hardship so I could easily find a better offer next time. Since it looks like the ones your talking about are those who doesnt have much choice since they're quite stuck with the offer from companies who have bond instead of the other companies who dont.

3
Forward-632146KP•

Sorry man play stupid games, win stupid prizes

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

8
Forward-632146KP•

OP pretends to be a savior in this sub lol

8
Extreme-Ad-3238•

Ohhh!!! Found out na at least di lang pala ako ganito tingin kay OP even before pa na posts/comments nya HAHAHA.

3
Forward-632146KP•

He's a hypocrite and tries too hard to sound intelligent lololol

2
jusseypoosi•

couldn't agree more. OP is shortsighted narcistic boss, nothing new and not surprised to his reaction. maybe he hates 77global, but who doesn't lmao?

as someone who had a bond in a context of training, and a bond in a context of getting paid X amount of money for lock-in employment. I don't see anything wrong with it, as long as you're good with the terms it shouldn't be tainted as a bad employment at any level.

1
RedLibra•

counted ba ung "working in the company" as a "training" since may natututunan ka naman daw habang nagw-work dun?

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
ProgrammAndRecruitOPrecruiter•

Sure, you can provide your end of the agreement about this bond. You train the employee, etc., but what if as time goes by, the employee isn't any more motivatedd to continue working with you.

Does this mean, you're going to pin him throughout the duration of the bond only because he/she can't pay back what you gave?

It's not that I hate bonds, it's how impossible the terms for most have to leave the bond. To see bonds having 250k-1M penalties yet the salary is only 25-50k for 2-3 years is just impossible to pay.

Sure the applicant agreed on the bond, but time happens and people change. You just can't pin them because of that. It just wouldn't give you the ROI you'd expect then.

0†
Powerful_Tour5442•

I'm not sure why you are getting shat on here OP. They fail to realize your point na once you sign a bond, the balance of power shifts even more in favor of the employer, it takes away cards you can play to advance your career.

Raises? normally used as a retention tool by the company. Forget it why would they give it to you, there's a bond.

Complaints about the environment? Suck it up buttercup u are stuck with us.

I hate survivorship bias, "It WoRkEd foR mE therefore ITS oK".

Statistically you are more prone to be screwed. If it worked out for you, good for you.

2†
jusseypoosi•

it is not survivorship bias, it is being rational on something worth looking at. bonds may vary from company to company, making it general is just bullshit.

now going back to the concerned company, 77global, bond is jsut bad, there is not argumant in that, but he is trying to generalize that everything related to bond is bad.

They fail to realize your point na once you sign a bond, the balance of power shifts even more in favor of the employer, it takes away cards you can play to advance your career.

then why sign if you think of that way? again, you have the power to control your life and so do the others.

3
Powerful_Tour5442•

then why sign if you think of that way? again, you have the power to control your life and so do the others.

Fortunately back when I was job hunting as a fresh grad, I had the luxury of having multiple offers and I was not being pressured by my family to get whatever dogshit job is available. The ones with bonds had dogshit compensation/growth relative to the market, and the employer knows it. If you look at the top graduate programs(fmcgs etc), there are no bonds, as a matter in fact when I told 77 that I had a standing offer with one of the FMCGS they immediately doubled the starting salary from 30k to 60k, how convenient lol.

If I flip the situation and I was a breadwinner, I will have no time and space to compare the market and will I sign what I need to sign to survive, hence getting locked in shitty deals.

And lets, not pretend that the employer-employee relationship is one of equal footing, stop the cap, it is inherently employer sided even without bonds, once you sign one though you literally give them what little control you had left.

To be honest hindi ko gets bakit G na G kayo dito sa post na to, maybe nag sign kayo ng bond dati and it worked out for you? Happy for you then. I just wanna hammer home OP's point that a bond is not for you. It is for the employer's protection, and is inherently negative for the individual concerned.

Empathy really goes a long way.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

0
ProgrammAndRecruitOPrecruiter•

Sure, but tell that to those applicants who can't secure another job.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

3
jusseypoosi•

not accepting a bond in a context of "BECAUSE ITS A BOND AND ITS BAD" is just pure immature and irrational.

you're better than this bossing, go think harder.

6
VacBannedForLife•

What would be your "mature and rational" reason for not accepting a bond then?

1
thorwynnn•

It is within the sole discretion of the candidate if he/she is willing to accept the bond. moreover, fault rin ng recruitment or HR na hindi nila ma inform ng maayos si candidate bakit may bond and yung consequences nito kasi sobrang abala sila sa quota.

I am the one doing the interview in terms of technicals. I always disclose that I want a 1 year bond on my team kasi ang hirap ng after 6 months resign agad. I see to it that this will be what they are going to expect para walang sisihan once they sign up. That is for my team's standpoint kasi it takes me months to get the perfect candidate for the role, spend 2 to 3 months training him/her then on the 6th month mag reresign kasi greener pasture.. ayoko kasi ng job hopper na papasok lang sa company para magpataas ng sweldo.

Marami naman loopholes if bonded ka and you want to get out without paying the consequence. as per dole alam ko hindi talaga ethical ang bonds and hindi ka pwede pilitin ng company sa bond and let them pay you, mangyayari lang siguro is you're going to be blacklisted but you will still be able to get your coe etc. Moreover, pwede mo rin sabihin may sakit ka para ma dissolve yung bond or magpa bagsak ka sa evals ganon.

If I remember correctly the bond for that company is like 6x of your salary.

5
feedmesomedatadata•

That is for my team's standpoint kasi it takes me months to get the perfect candidate for the role, spend 2 to 3 months training him/her then on the 6th month mag reresign kasi greener pasture.. ayoko kasi ng job hopper na papasok lang sa company para magpataas ng sweldo.

Maybe it's time to assess why despite offering a high salary your employees still leave you after 6 months. Maybe your idea of a high salary isn't really that high in the first place? Maybe something in the company culture or workload that pushes these employees away? Maybe the training isn't adequate enough after 2-3 months because they still don't know most of the work. You may want to ditch hiring entry or junior level engineers and just look for mid-level to senior-level engineers where you don't need to train them and they can contribute at week 2 of employment. The "greener pasture" reason is sometimes just a way to avoid burning bridges with your company so don't think that when they say this it's true.

If you don't want a job hopper you can definitely identify them just by looking at their tenure in their previous companies. Although not everyone with less than 2 years tenure for each company can be branded as a job hopper but you can definitely make that a filter.

6
thorwynnn•

As of now I cannot see anything that we lack for the team. What I am looking for are mid to senior level developers and I made sure that i did my research to evaluate their market value. Not just in the internet but I do have some network of friends in HR and Head Hunters. I specifically report this findings to the board so they'll have an idea of budget that is needed to offer a certain candidate. Of course that training is not that usual classroom setup or boot camp, but teaching them the entire business process of the project and also some technologies that are proprietary.

Since the emergence of WFH setup and other countries shifting their resources to PH because of this setup, candidates are more eager to grab more opportunities compared to the time that all were reporting to office.

Of course i do filter out those which has a potential pattern of being a job hopper. It took me months to get the perfect candidate, offered his/her desired compensation. Apparently the hiring manager had a mistake on giving the candidate a contract which does not have a bond, asked for a CoE with a salary indicated and used it as a leverage to ask a higher payout from other companies :) Tulad nga ng sabi nila loyalty is dead here, pera pera lang yan at the end of the day.

I did those exit interviews, they love the job they loved the experience, even going to the US and yung nga learnings nila during their stay here was exponential na sobrang kaya na ulit nila mag ask ng mas mataas sa ibang company

The bond is there to safeguard the best interest of the company & mine and not the candidate.

2
feedmesomedatadata•

Oh that's so unfortunate. That's probably one reason why I would only refer people whom I personally know and have worked with before to my current and previous company.

1
-zero-one-•

Maiba ako, kamusta naman ang overall company culture? Possible nao-overlook 'to. A lot of people I know are staying on their jobs kasi masaya sila sa company nila, kahit alam nilang may "better offer" if nag explore sila sa market.

1
ProgrammAndRecruitOPrecruiter•

but teaching them the entire business process of the project and also some technologies that are proprietary.

This can be the top reason why they were pursuing greener pastures. Proprietary technology demands high costs to talent. And if they can pursue a higher rate elsewhere, why stay on a technology that limits them (in a way)?

​

As of now I cannot see anything that we lack for the team. What I am looking for are mid to senior level developers and I made sure that i did my research to evaluate their market value.

Sure, but you maybe not adding more to compensate for your proprietary technology. I mean if you're looking for a common skill and based the rate on that, it won't be appealing to an employee in less than a year because the career track is better there compared to yours.

​

Yes, am saying that if you want to keep your employees loyal to you. You should invest in them as well without overloading them to burnout.

0
thorwynnn•

I don't think that it would be that top reason why they are willing to go. It is vital for them to know how that proprietary tech works since all other processes and pertinent technologies revolves around it.

Burnout? I don't think because as a developer you're the one estimating your developments and it is output based with minimal supervision, sobrang thankful sila sa time and they got out of their comfort zone. It just so happens that someone can always buy you out. hahaha nagkataon lang na baka ganon lang ka efficient yung team ko and the support system. haha!

Not trying to argue here pero yun lang talaga yung nakikita ko sa side ko bakit naging ganyan perspective ko. Before when i was just a pawn naiinis ako bakit may bond pero when i was the one already managing it parang nagbago yung pananaw ko.

1
Forward-632146KP•

Diskarte culture is a big thing here in the Philippines. I recall a few months back about a few Redditors wanting to quit a bonded job after the training period. I know for a fact that loyalty is dead and we shouldn't expect it, even if the managers are literal angels, but you cannot avoid malicious actors who are only in it to hop around and inflate their salaries.

1
fartmanteau•

Our unethical practice is fine, you can totally get out of it anyway. We just want to browbeat the suckers. But it’s their decision! But also our recruiters can cover our asses better.

That’s some cognitive dissonance man. If your practices suck so bad you have to threaten people for ransom for more than you pay them to stick around more than six months, you gotta rethink your business.

3
ALifeformFromEarth•

They make business out of desperate fresh grads and career shifters.

1
VacBannedForLife•

Couldn't agree more

1
grifter__web•

Share your story OP. Did you end up accepting a bond and found another company that has the same benefit but couldn’t get out because of the bond and nobody is teaching/training you? It would be good if you share your experience because from what I see, nasa discretion ng candidate and it is really a shared responsibility to be in that bond. Shared responsibility in the sense na responsibility na yung company would provide adequate training to prep the employee for his project and it is also the responsibility of the candidate to focus on learning what is being provided. It is also the responsibility of the management of the current project to disclose how the project works and if there is overtime involve, the process and work environment. The candidate is responsible to reach out if he is having hard time in solving the problem and be able to fix the problem as a team.

1
ProgrammAndRecruitOPrecruiter•

I don't have a story to tell because never have I signed an employment/training bond. What I have signed are non-competes (which aren't relevant to this topic).

The reason for this post is that I am tired of giving the same advice on Reddit and on our group. Neither can I turn a blind eye to those who can't leave because of the bond.

Sure you may say the bond was well-informed to the applicant. But the reason most of them complain is that they don't feel motivated to work anymore. Be it related to frequent overtime, low salary, etc. Worst, raising the concerns are ignored or shut down. So what option do they have?

Pay the penalty to leave you may say? But not everyone has the money to just pay it off.

3
grifter__web•

Lol. You got tired because you try to solve something that is beyond your control. You don’t have control over the policy of the company. You don’t have control over job seekers as well, all you can do is give your limited opinion since you never experienced getting hired with a bond. You give opinion and that’s it. The way you titled the thread and the context made it look bad since hindi naman lahat ng may bond ay masama, nasa employee na lang on how to grow from it. Ask yourself, if you are the owner of company would you put a bond to the opportunity you are giving to the candidate? Do you think your shareholder would agree with you?

0
ProgrammAndRecruitOPrecruiter•

If I were to give a bond. I'd make sure it benefits the employee more than the company. Because if we go pro-company and the employee didn't like it, the company will end up with a higher cost of maintaining an unmotivated resource.

And by pro-employee, I mean listening to what the employee wants to keep the wheel spinning freely. That includes reducing overtimes, considering salary adjustment, kicking out the toxic supervisor, etc.

Sure it will be hard to bargain with the shareholders, but if they want to keep their ROI intact, they'll need to think twice. Delegating to HR or subordinates can only do much to keep someone in. All shareholders should understand that, unless they never became employees themselves.

1
grifter__web•

Good! Do you own a company now that can make it happen?

0