Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) Newsgroups: net.legal,net.jobs Subject: Re: Is this company breaking the law with it's employees? Message-ID: <721@ttrdc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 8-Feb-86 20:29:09 EST Article-I.D.: ttrdc.721 Posted: Sat Feb 8 20:29:09 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Feb-86 06:09:17 EST References: <108@graffiti.UUCP> <2650@amdahl.UUCP> <2617@gatech.CSNET> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL Lines: 30 Xref: watmath net.legal:2884 net.jobs:1853 In article <2617@gatech.CSNET>, jeff@gatech.CSNET (Jeff Lee) writes: >One company I know of requires all the employees that they (the company) have >to move to sign an agreement that they (the employee) will reimburse the company >for moving expenses if they leave within a year. Gould perhaps? (I spoke with them in college and their literature states this quite clearly.) Does it seem that this would >fall under the same category? The training would seem to be different since it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >would be difficult (if not impossible) for the employee to provide his own ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >training while he has the option of providing his own moving expenses? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >-- >Jeff Lee Huh? Non sequitur. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, vax135}!ttrdc!levy