Yeah, it was a sticky situation because the contract was ambiguous. It basically stated that the relocation money had to be paid back if you left within a year of the expiration date of the benefit. Apparently, the expiration date of the money (not sure how a lump sum expires) was a year after I got it, so I had to stay two years to avoid the penalty (left 4 months early).
That's rough. I'm trying to think of an alternative contract that would protect the employer's initial investment but also not hold your money hostage. One year seems like a more reasonable compromise.
I'm surprised it was legal for them to ask for the relocation money back. Sounds like a good thing to keep an eye on when looking at contracts.
Yeah, it was a sticky situation because the contract was ambiguous. It basically stated that the relocation money had to be paid back if you left within a year of the expiration date of the benefit. Apparently, the expiration date of the money (not sure how a lump sum expires) was a year after I got it, so I had to stay two years to avoid the penalty (left 4 months early).
That's rough. I'm trying to think of an alternative contract that would protect the employer's initial investment but also not hold your money hostage. One year seems like a more reasonable compromise.
Agreed! Two years is a long time, and I’d argue that I more than paid them back at the time. Rules are rules though—or so I’m told! Haha