United States | News & Politics

This is the best summary I could come up with:

For airline pilots and software engineers, for example, it has been a longstanding practice at some companies to require employees to stay at their jobs for a defined period of time in order to recoup costs related to hiring and training.

Private-equity firms not only tend to replicate contract terms across their suite of businesses, but they have increasingly purchased companies that provide employee training, giving them an added incentive to use TRAPs.

Based on his research, Harris believes it is safe to assume that in every industry in which there has been litigation involving one worker, stay-or-pay clauses are present in the contracts of thousands of others, because of the way businesses tend to copy one another.

Because stay-or-pay clauses are so common in industries that employ about a third of the entire American work force — health care, transportation and technology — Harris estimates that millions of people might be subject to them.

(Villalta denies saying “anything close to or resembling that statement.”) That employee had left the salon to move to Arizona, and she said she had paid just to avoid the hassle, but she found the amount “unjust and not accurate” as a reflection of her training.

Stay-or-pay clauses are similar to noncompete agreements, which moved into the spotlight in the last decade after revelations that fast-food workers at Burger King, Jimmy John’s and Carl’s Jr. were being required to sign contracts barring them from working for competitors.

The original article contains 3,525 words, the summary contains 242 words. Saved 93%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!