3 year bond

[hangingkahel]

i have a recent job offer na ok naman yung company and stable. the pay is Ok naman for my experience. however, theyre asking for a 3 year bond.

havent encountered a bond before and i think 3 years is too much. wala namang promised na trainings abroad etc. may mga possibilities daw pero hindi guaranteed.

yung pinalitan ko kasi only stayed for 2 1/2 years. im willing to sign pero 3 years sounds too much. any thoughts on bonds? and if ever things fail, how can i get around that bond?

[KuyaDanny]

Usually, if you haven't served the full committed period, you must pay money to release yourself from the bond. Get details from your employer before you accept.

[hangingkahel]

yeah, that was in the contract when i initially read it. (havent signed it and made an excuse to delay muna)

hayy Ok na sana itong company e kung bakit may ganyang bond pa. i iwsh i can tell them to take it out because i'll stay for the right reasons but not a bond. does this mean that they know na pangit palakad nila and wants to lock me down?

[djgoer]

I will have to advice against it. The offer might be good now, but what about after two-years? You might be stuck at the same paygrade and you can't do anything about it because you signed that contract.

Last time I was surprised because this one company offered me a job but it required signing a bond din. I didn't know that some companies required experienced professionals to sign a bond as well. I didn't even think twice. Hindi ko tinanggap.

The good thing kasi pag walang bond, pwede ka umalis anytime you want, so the moment you feel na the company is not right for you, alis ka na kaagad.

If hindi ka pa naman desperate, don't take it.

[dudztgp]

In my opinion, bonds are for insecure companies. Maybe there's a trend in their office that employees leave them within 2 years and they just want to prevent it.

On the other hand, it might for their security, that's what I heard at least. But 3 years is too much. Even 1 year for me is unacceptable. Perhaps 6 months is enough but not quite.

Don't mix up bond and job security. Bond doesn't secure you a job but secures the company from disgruntled employees.

[JackNDBeanstalk]

I consulted a lawyer before about employment bond, he said that the amount you owe the company if you resigned within the bond tenure is the total amount of all the trainings and travel expenses the company spent for you supported by an official receipt. It doesn’t necessarily that you signed a 300K bond you are oblige to pay the entire amount – NO. All should be supported with an official receipt. If they can’t show you anything then the bond is considered null or void.

[JackNDBeanstalk]

Agree with all the posts above. Employment bond is one business tactic of companies, mostly which has high attrition rate. Companies which will juice you, squeeze you, and sip your nutrients up to the very last drop (i.e. ACN)
Think about it. If the company is confident enough that their employees will stay because they take care of them really really well, they would not bother having employment bond in the contract. I know a company who sends their employee abroad for training, who set out their employee from one country to another but doesn’t execute employment bond rule.

[randmcnally]

there's such a thing as contract of adhesion. if the contract heavily favors one entity, the contract can be voided ab initio. there's also a consideration that the conditions are non-negotiable (take it or leave it) while the full terms of the contract is difficult to provide or impossible before acceptance.

So, if they put there a condition for 3 year bond and they do not compensate through trainings or travel, the bond can be voided.

Personally, I would say "No" to a three year bond without any training/travel commitments. Bonds are acceptable if they indeed provide expensive trainings. For example, in my company, they would give you a "bond" only when they enroll you on external trainings. that "bond" decreases as the months passes by.

I would stay away from those companies because there's a big chance that people from these companies leave after a year or two. They wanted to ensure their security by providing unfair conditions rather than providing a good working condition.

lastly, three years seems to be too long for me even for an expensive training.

[you_pex2]

im not an expert, but if you didn't receive any trainings worth of your bond or stated in your contract, pwede mong magging statement yun. -not sure

[Jamescpar]

The 3-year bond seems too long. If the other terms are okey and if this opportunity may hardly come again, then that's what you have to figure out.

Assuming good trainings are underway and will increase your market value, then acceptance of the same is in my opinion not really that bad. The only potential problem is IF things may not be okey along the way which you will only know in future. But if you are young, so interested with the kind of training, go for it. Worse come to worse, I'm sure the laws are there to help you.

If you got a good feedback about the company and talked to their existing employees that the environment is okey, then I say go for it man! 3 years is quite long, but before you know it, 3 years is over.

[versa17]

@JackNDBeanstalk
@randmcnally

I agree with the statements made by the two posters.
VOID na yung contract kung hindi na compensate ng trainings o hindi ka man ginastusan para sa yung mag-unlad ng pag-iisip.

before when I first joined a company, I signed a 2 year bond with a company for 100k. they gave me a 10months training which is needed for the job.

Many of my collegues resigned but the company cannot go after them since the time we sign the contract, I was not with my lawyer and not notarized. It means the contract is VOID.

So my opinion, you can still go for the offer and join there company but if you feel deep inside that it is not worth it, don't accept their offer.

[versa17]

@hangingkahel

may I asked, is this Verifone? I heard that they have 2-3 years bond depending on what team to join, without any training abroad.

[Jamescpar]

Of course, try to maintain good relationship with your prospective employer when you decide to accept the offer. Even assuming you are freed from the bond should you decide to leave earlier than the stipulated contract, I suspect the company will not acknowledge your stay with them and therefore you are unable to get work reference which should be important in your future career.

[dBAR]

save yourself the headache, if you see yourself naman as a marketable and competent professional then why risk it??

there are lots of very good and stable companies out there, mag tyaga ka lang maghanap

[hangingkahel]

wow. thanks for your inputs! its nice to read some perspectives. kasi halos wala akong kakilala na ganito katagal ang bond.

i have been jobless for quite a while and i like the job and the pay is good for my exp. im in marketing and im shifting fr. events/ promotions to brand managing kasi. im not a fresh grad naman kaya i feel bad about the bond. feeling ko pang mngmnt trainees lang kasi yun.

is it possible to negotiate the length of the bond? im willing to do it na if they lessen it to two years e. will that make an extremely bad impression kaya?


@versa.. its a retail trading company

In my opinion, bonds are for insecure companies. Maybe there's a trend in their office that employees leave them within 2 years and they just want to prevent it.

On the other hand, it might for their security, that's what I heard at least. But 3 years is too much. Even 1 year for me is unacceptable. Perhaps 6 months is enough but not quite.

Don't mix up bond and job security. Bond doesn't secure you a job but secures the company from disgruntled employees.

yeah i think 3 years is pretty long din. i mean di naman ganun kaganda kasi benefits. magkakaroon naman daw ng increase pero the HR never assured me ba there's an annual performance evaluation.

[niQQQ]

Bonds exist because a company 'pays' for something in your behalf. In this case, the company cannot even point out specifically what they are 'paying' for, for the 'bond' to exist; be it professional trainings, certifications, deployment abroad, etc etc. So I must say, this is a big JOKE.

Are you 100% sure you're gonna be happy with your stay there? Is the management that great for you to stay for 3 years? You cannot say for sure. One thing's certain though, once you accepted that offer, there is no going back. NOT even when you found out the management sucks, NOT even when you found out you are doing the job you didn't signed for, etc etc.. Unless you are a rock who can endure 3 years of trash or you are ready to spare cash, your hands are all tied. Think about that. Think about the what if's and WHY that bond exist. Maybe they want to hold in people because a lot of them leave in 0 - 1.5 years time. If so, why do you think they LEAVE so soon? There MUST be reason somewhere. You see, the bond they present you is not well justified.

Trust me, I've been there, done that. And I tell you, tying up yourself with a company for 1 or 2 years (or for 3 LONG years in this case) is not ideal. Please heed my advise, look for other alternatives. You deserve a lot more. There are a lot of opportunities out there. You just have to patiently look. Don't be fooled.

Good luck.

PS: You mentioned it's a retail trading company? Is it ABOITIZ or NNC? If so, I have friends who worked/are working there, and yes, they are on bond for 3 years.

[randyjack9]

Question lang mga ka-pexers, i'm planning to apply a company w/a 2 yrs bond. Under ba ng period ng bond *** bootcamp/training?
Thanks sa mga sasagot..

[Jamescpar]

Another reason why companies maintain employment bond is because they are so confident enough that working with them will give their employees more and better opportunities outside because of the good trainings they provide. In short, they have the reputation yet this advantage becomes their own liability because their well trained employees now become more marketable.

If employees are now better equipped with the needs in the industry because of the good trainings and experience they had with the company, it is expected that they begin to search for more exciting higher pay jobs which your prospective employer may not be able to provide, thus the bond. If this is the situation, then the bond may be fairly justified. But then 3 years is a bit longer and yes why not try to negotiate? Negotiation is your right and if it fails or succeed, be ready for the consequences. Before you say NO to the offer, what do you really think a 3 year bond exists? Have you tried asking employees in the organization and know about the company's culture and way of management? I think the feedback you will get from them should be one of your reliable basis in decision-making because all the replies in this thread including mine are merely based on assumptions.

[stellaartois]

I would honestly go against any form of employment that necessitates an immediate bond. There are an innumerable number of factors that may cause you to want to leave the company, most of which are impossible to foresee before entering the company.

The stress level of the job may be more than what you expected, you might be assigned to an unreasonable superior, your pay may become stagnant etcetera.

I'm not saying bonds are evil. I just think that signing a bond "before" even entering office is unreasonable. A more logical approach is to allow the employee to familiarize himself with the workplace for a few months without a bond, then require him to sign a bond only when he is about to be deployed to a costly training.

If possible, although unlikely, try negotiating such conditions as it will work better for you. Remember no policies are set in stone, there is always room for negotiation.

[PuddiCake]

Sabi sakin ng HR sa isang company.. normal lang daw na magkaroon ng 1-2 yr bond pag fresh grad at IT position ang inaapply-an mo. Is this true? HR ng Banking company kasi ang nagsabi sakin nun. Masasabi nyo ba na worthwhile ang stay ng isang programmer sa isang bangko na may 2 year training bond?