How I see a bond after the entire course has come to an end from different perspective is that of a “necessary evil causing disdain to all”. The situations organizations individuals and any other entities related need to have a clear perspective of what is the requirement (May be need) to get out of the Chakravyuh. And you can bet on the fact that the wisdom of lawyers and with the armory of various acts and law suits an enticing web of connotation can be created.
Supposedly “As per the Indian Statute bonded labor system was long abolished and no bond can force any person to work against the employees wishes” But never in the sentence is mentioned that an employer cannot create an impression of bondage and the examples of that are highlighted specifically.
Some points that stick their head out within the e.gs are:
Paying bond money with the involvement of a third party
On site resignation requires the employee to know the law of that land.
Legal department to decide the approval on bond relaxation.
Oversees travel increases bond amount as well as time frame
Breakup of training costs not provided
Action restricting bonds for certain profiles
Bonus on completion of period
Proportionate payment beyond one year
Bond amount dependant on the strategic position held
No law change with time.
If we focus on the aspects and the cases cited the major words that come into focus are “Training”
“oversees” and “period”. All the bonds basically revolve around the three variables by changing either one or three of them. But the paradox of the situation is the disparity in the bonds of different companies and one of the major reasons that companies are able to receive such advantage is due to the information asymmetry.
Most companies try to implement a bond by citing reasons of “training” but is it clarified that the company has spend money on the personal grooving and enhancement of the employees, but not just a training in literal sense. Is the “training” judged on certain parameters to see whether it helps the employee in some way for his personal grooming or doing his job in a substantial way? Moreover oversees training attracts more without even highlighting the break up of costs in the employment contract.
Also some other facts that need to be pointed out is The loyalty award given by some companies on completion of the bond period while some companies are actually involving third party agreements and by the end of the bond period the employee has lost more than he has gained. Moreover in cases of disparity the legal department takes over the reign of the case who may not understand the situations related to the resignation or specific reasons that may have caused disdain to the employee.
Although the employers cannot be blamed for the process followed as Indian companies have tasted the advantage of having a bond and the kind of psychological advantage it can create by restricting employee movement at the start of his career. It cuts down the attrition; helps to garner back training costs and most of all create strategic and quality human capital. But a question mark still applies on the legal implementation of such bonds. An employee may break a bond and leave and the company may decide not to take legal recourse since the cost may be too high but an employer may not give experience certificates and other payments if the bond is not relieved after a substantial period is spent in the organization (about 2-3 years).
So with the culture, approach of the society and multinationals barging in we may see some more innovative ideas in contract manufacturing (some Indians may have outsource contract manufacturing to have some words placed together to just show we follow a standard as in case of OPGC). But at end of the day if at any point of time I have to come to some “ruskin BOND”- I may decide not to read his creation or for that matter I may not watch a movie of “james BOND” but can I ever question an “employment BOND” is a bigger query.
No comments:
Post a Comment