Is it possible to get out of a signed contract if a nurse doesn't like her job.

caliotter3 · Nov 5, 2015

They fought the fee as being excessive and ended up owing the full $35k plus another $10k in lawyer and court fees.

Sounds akin to the soldier convicted in a German criminal trial for drug trafficking who appealed his conviction, and went from a six year sentence, to a 15 year sentence!

FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN · Nov 6, 2015

Show me one actual case where an employer sued for a fee (not for education reimbursement) and won, and I will never say that we don't have sanctioned indentured servitude in this country again. I still think it is illegal and wrong, but I will concede the point that it doesn't happen.

Then I will be even more depressed than I am already.

So I kind of don't want to look. But I promise I will.

elkpark · Nov 6, 2015

Show me one actual case where an employer sued for a fee (not for education reimbursement) and won, and I will never say that we don't have sanctioned indentured servitude in this country again. I still think it is illegal and wrong, but I will concede the point that it doesn't happen.
Then I will be even more depressed than I am already.
So I kind of don't want to look. But I promise I will.

Even if it has never happened, that still doesn't make a contract "indentured servitude." How the heck do you make the leap from "voluntarily signed an employment contract" to "sanctioned indentured servitude"?

FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN · Nov 7, 2015

No one has shown a case so far. I am inclined not to have a discussion with people who call me ridiculous, which is spelled with an "i" not an "e". But for those who have politely asked me why a contract that obliges an employee to pay $35,000 to stop working for their employer is tantamount to indentured servitude, I will provide my explanation; and I will just mention now that I am surprised that my opinion is so unpopular on this site and that does concern me for the future of civil rights. The populace will not be able to maintain rights that they do not believe exist.

If these contracts are not upheld in court they are simply nasty little devices of psychological manipulation. I can make you do anything I make you think I can make you do. Since I haven't seen an actual case, I maintain that this is all they are, and that people should assert themselves against such abuse, and if you read my posts you will know that I do not take that word lightly.

The reason why such contracts are tantamount to indentured servitude if they are upheld in court is that an employment contract is not voluntarily signed by an employee in at least many and probably most situations.

Working (in the US) is voluntary, but also a necessity for able people. People must work in order to provide themselves and dependents with food, shelter and basic necessities. If able people (and even many disabled people, but that's another argument) can't work they become increasingly impoverished over time and suffer devastating effects in every aspect of their lives. Thus, working is not really a choice, it is a necessary action to live.

We can choose where we work, and what job we do and that's why we don't consider the condition of having to work an infringement of our rights. But periods of economic recession/depression have a limiting effect on that choice and as jobs become scarce, employers become more choosy. Now folks are in a situation where they may have so few choices, that they don't really have a choice. Other factors that might contribute to not really having a choice include: having a poor work history, no work history, being in debt, having many dependents, and many other factors. Most people can see that a great many people are in this situation right now, where they really are not in a position to turn down a job offer. If your choices are to take a job where you sign away your right to quit that job without paying a $35,000 fine or have no job and lose your home, respect of the community, and enter into devastating poverty, it's not really much of a choice.

The idea that people choose these conditions for themselves is false. They don't choose this. They sign contracts because they have a necessity for a job, and the contract gets them the job. Furthermore, once they have signed, a $35,000 fine to leave is a large enough sum to completely prohibit leaving. Thus, we have a situation where a person has involuntarily entered into a relationship where they must work for a number of years or else pay a sum that they could never afford. That meets the requirement for indentured servitude.

As I stated before, these contracts, if they exist, are not truly indentured servitude because they are not upheld in court. Not every contract is enforceable and it is not illegal to create an unenforceable contract.

Contracts do not supercede the law.

Horseshoe, BSN, RN · Nov 7, 2015

No one has shown a case so far.

One was provided for you right here:

I've worked places with new grad contracts and they certainly do pursue those fees and aggressively at that. Hospitals already have active systems for dealing with people who owe them money so it's no hassle for them to add someone who left their contract early to that list. I worked at one place where a new grad left one year into a two-year contract, the contracted fee for breaking the contract was $35,000. They fought the fee as being excessive and ended up owing the full $35k plus another $10k in lawyer and court fees.

Obviously he is not going to provide a name to an internet site, so there is no way to validate his claim, but it's not true that no one addressed your comment.

bagladyrn, RN · Nov 7, 2015

In all this conversation I have seen no one address the other issue of a contract - one's moral obligation to keep their word. I agree to remain at a job for "X" amount of time for certain specified benefits. As long as the other party fulfills their end of the bargain then I should fulfill mine. "I don't like it" is hardly an excuse.

Old fashioned of me I suppose.

klone, MSN, RN · Nov 7, 2015

Invitale, I believe you and I have gone around about this subject in the past. And I did show you specific case law where employment contracts are in fact legal and enforceable, provided that the wording of the contract indicates that there is provision of education and training. That's the sole purpose of new grad contracts - to compel nurses to stay for a period of time after the hospital has invested months and thousands in their training.

FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN · Nov 7, 2015

Horseshoe, a story told on the internet is not case law.

Klone, you may have posted case law, but I definitely didn't see it.

At any rate, I am excluding actual education costs but not employee training. I mean like tuition reimbursement at a university, that is a legitimate thing to have to pay back to a company. Not wages, not fines or fees.

PinayUSA · Nov 7, 2015

Even if you lost the case, being forced to pay is almost impossible.

I have sued before over broken contract and won case, only to never receive any monetary amount.

FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN · Nov 7, 2015

I have addressed your point bagladyrn.

We do have a moral obligation to keep our word. But giving your word can only happen in a non coercive situation. If, for example, you tell an armed burglar that you will not call the police if he will let you live, you are not giving him your word, you are begging for your life.

Employment contracts, especially for new grads in times of economic recession are not entirely voluntary situations. Sometimes they are, when the prospective employee is in high demand, and is clever, with excellent bargaining skills, but many if not most times they are not voluntary situations for the new grad with looming debt.

Ruby Vee, BSN · Nov 7, 2015

In all this conversation I have seen no one address the other issue of a contract - one's moral obligation to keep their word. I agree to remain at a job for "X" amount of time for certain specified benefits. As long as the other party fulfills their end of the bargain then I should fulfill mine. "I don't like it" is hardly an excuse.
Old fashioned of me I suppose.

Perhaps no one has addressed the moral obligation to keep one's word because in this world of "Special Snowflakes, that's an outmoded concept. You are old fashioned. But then, so am I.

If you don't plan on keeping your word, don't sign a contract. And if you DO sign a contract, please plan to keep your word. That's what a contract is all about.

Susie2310 · Nov 7, 2015

[quote=lnvitale;8775114

The reason why such contracts are tantamount to indentured servitude if they are upheld in court is that an employment contract is not voluntarily signed by an employee in at least many and probably most situations.

Working (in the US) is voluntary, but also a necessity for able people. People must work in order to provide themselves and dependents with food, shelter and basic necessities. If able people (and even many disabled people, but that's another argument) can't work they become increasingly impoverished over time and suffer devastating effects in every aspect of their lives. Thus, working is not really a choice, it is a necessary action to live.

We can choose where we work, and what job we do and that's why we don't consider the condition of having to work an infringement of our rights. But periods of economic recession/depression have a limiting effect on that choice and as jobs become scarce, employers become more choosy. Now folks are in a situation where they may have so few choices, that they don't really have a choice. Other factors that might contribute to not really having a choice include: having a poor work history, no work history, being in debt, having many dependents, and many other factors. Most people can see that a great many people are in this situation right now, where they really are not in a position to turn down a job offer. If your choices are to take a job where you sign away your right to quit that job without paying a $35,000 fine or have no job and lose your home, respect of the community, and enter into devastating poverty, it's not really much of a choice.

The idea that people choose these conditions for themselves is false. They don't choose this. They sign contracts because they have a necessity for a job, and the contract gets them the job. Furthermore, once they have signed, a $35,000 fine to leave is a large enough sum to completely prohibit leaving. Thus, we have a situation where a person has involuntarily entered into a relationship where they must work for a number of years or else pay a sum that they could never afford. That meets the requirement for indentured servitude.

As I stated before, these contracts, if they exist, are not truly indentured servitude because they are not upheld in court. Not every contract is enforceable and it is not illegal to create an unenforceable contract.

Contracts do not supercede the law.

Needing a job, and being required to sign a contract as a condition of employment, is not something one is forced to do. One can choose to accept that job on the employer's conditions or not; no-one is forcing the employee's hand. One is not being forced to sign; one is making a voluntary choice, a choice that should be made after reading the contract thoroughly, with full understanding of what one is agreeing to, with knowledge of the consequences one incurs if one does not like the job or wishes to leave the position for any reason (break the contract). Those are the actions of a mature, responsible person. You understand what you are agreeing to; you understand your obligations; you understand the consequences for not fulfilling your obligations, and signing the contract means you understand and accept these things. Rationalizations that one has been "forced" to sign, and that one is therefore entitled to get out of the contract without paying the penalty, are just that, rationalizations.