Do I have to repay my (soon to be former) employer?
April 22, 2008 2:39 PM Subscribe
My (soon to be former) employer wants me to repay a portion of my continuing education budget. What are my options?
I am a web developer in Portland, Oregon. I have been working at a medium sized interactive agency for 18 months. I have accepted an offer at another company, and given two weeks notice.
In March, my current company paid for me to attend SXSW. Our employee handbook states:
Participating employees must continue to work at [AGENCY NAME] for six months following completion of the program or event. Otherwise, they must reimburse the company for 75% of the amount used.
This is a very recent addition to the handbook, and this is the first opportunity they've had to enforce it.
I have been a model employee. I have consistently received exemplary performance reviews. Everyone in the office speaks glowingly of me and my skills. In numerous cases I have worked long stretches of overtime with little to no bonus compensation. My company likes to pride itself on the fact that they pay "industry standard rates". However, my salary has been between $20K-$15K less than the average web developer with my skill set and experience makes in Portland. Consequently, the amount they want me to repay ($825) is a significant amount to me. The company has also faced some financial difficulty recently, and was forced to layoff a portion of the staff.
I understand their position of wanting to set a precedent. I also acknowledge that employees could use their continuing education budget to learn a new skill, and get a better offer at another company. In my case, my new employer has been trying to hire me well before SXSW.
What are my options? Is this line in the handbook enforceable? Should I approach it as a "financial hardship" and ask them to forgive it? Should I forget it and essentially work my last two weeks for free?
I am a web developer in Portland, Oregon. I have been working at a medium sized interactive agency for 18 months. I have accepted an offer at another company, and given two weeks notice.
In March, my current company paid for me to attend SXSW. Our employee handbook states:
Participating employees must continue to work at [AGENCY NAME] for six months following completion of the program or event. Otherwise, they must reimburse the company for 75% of the amount used.
This is a very recent addition to the handbook, and this is the first opportunity they've had to enforce it.
I have been a model employee. I have consistently received exemplary performance reviews. Everyone in the office speaks glowingly of me and my skills. In numerous cases I have worked long stretches of overtime with little to no bonus compensation. My company likes to pride itself on the fact that they pay "industry standard rates". However, my salary has been between $20K-$15K less than the average web developer with my skill set and experience makes in Portland. Consequently, the amount they want me to repay ($825) is a significant amount to me. The company has also faced some financial difficulty recently, and was forced to layoff a portion of the staff.
I understand their position of wanting to set a precedent. I also acknowledge that employees could use their continuing education budget to learn a new skill, and get a better offer at another company. In my case, my new employer has been trying to hire me well before SXSW.
What are my options? Is this line in the handbook enforceable? Should I approach it as a "financial hardship" and ask them to forgive it? Should I forget it and essentially work my last two weeks for free?
I think it is important to know when this policy was added to the handbook. If it was added before you attended SXSW (or was present in the handbook when you joined) then it is enforceable although enforcing any disciplinary policy in the handbook is at the employer's discretion.
If this policy was added after you attended - then you have an argument that it shouldn't be applied in your case, since you may have chosen not to attend had you known that would have to reimburse 75%. The company is then left with the decision on whether to pursue this or not, knowing that it was added after the fact.
When it comes to the employee handbook - it is common to sign the handbook when you join to indicate that you agree to the policies that are included, what is less clear is whether you agree to any policies which are added subsequent to the version which you signed. A HR professional may be able to correct me here.
posted by clarkie666 at 2:52 PM on April 22, 2008
If this policy was added after you attended - then you have an argument that it shouldn't be applied in your case, since you may have chosen not to attend had you known that would have to reimburse 75%. The company is then left with the decision on whether to pursue this or not, knowing that it was added after the fact.
When it comes to the employee handbook - it is common to sign the handbook when you join to indicate that you agree to the policies that are included, what is less clear is whether you agree to any policies which are added subsequent to the version which you signed. A HR professional may be able to correct me here.
posted by clarkie666 at 2:52 PM on April 22, 2008
Employment law is variable by state, but a few things that would make a big difference are (a) when you say it's a recent addition, is is since they committed to send you to SXSW? Since they bought your ticket and/or plane fare? (b) did you sign for receipt of this new manual?
I am not sure that you're going to find anyone that knows this answer firmly, or at least not someone who will tell you - after all it's the deep pockets (employers) who would pay to research this issue, not employees. There's some information here, but as an information professional you're pretty much unprotected on the whole salary/hourly pay issue.
If you really want to make an issue of it - and risk the reference from these jerks - then one of your best courses of action will be to refuse to sign anything that agrees to this. They make make some claims - and even back them up - that you have to sign certain things or engage in certain actions to get your last paycheck, but in most states an employer has few legal rights to withhold salary.
If this is enough money that it's worth making an issue over it then you should talk to a labor attorney. Here's one who writes a blog (nothing comes up when searching there for 'repayment') but you can surely find a million more.
Push comes to shove, just consider it a small price to pay to get away from a place with that kind of negative and counter-productive policy. Unless of course they happen to have a policy where they commit to repay incoming employees for any training they got in the last six months.
Didn't think so.
posted by phearlez at 2:54 PM on April 22, 2008
I am not sure that you're going to find anyone that knows this answer firmly, or at least not someone who will tell you - after all it's the deep pockets (employers) who would pay to research this issue, not employees. There's some information here, but as an information professional you're pretty much unprotected on the whole salary/hourly pay issue.
If you really want to make an issue of it - and risk the reference from these jerks - then one of your best courses of action will be to refuse to sign anything that agrees to this. They make make some claims - and even back them up - that you have to sign certain things or engage in certain actions to get your last paycheck, but in most states an employer has few legal rights to withhold salary.
If this is enough money that it's worth making an issue over it then you should talk to a labor attorney. Here's one who writes a blog (nothing comes up when searching there for 'repayment') but you can surely find a million more.
Push comes to shove, just consider it a small price to pay to get away from a place with that kind of negative and counter-productive policy. Unless of course they happen to have a policy where they commit to repay incoming employees for any training they got in the last six months.
Didn't think so.
posted by phearlez at 2:54 PM on April 22, 2008
Response by poster: It was added to the handbook before SXSW, and I did sign an acknowledgement.
posted by sharkweek at 2:56 PM on April 22, 2008
posted by sharkweek at 2:56 PM on April 22, 2008
You need to explain a few things, if possible:
1. Did you have a copy of the employee manual?
2. When did the reimbursement change come into effect?
3. Did you accept the change to policy?
4. When did you take the course?
5. Did you ask to be sent on to SXSW? Or did they choose to send you?
6. When did you go?
7. When did they reimburse the event?
8. Was going to SXSW a condition of employment or in any way construed to be part of doing your job?
The advice needs to take these points into account. Otherwise, we don't really know what your situation is
posted by acoutu at 2:58 PM on April 22, 2008
1. Did you have a copy of the employee manual?
2. When did the reimbursement change come into effect?
3. Did you accept the change to policy?
4. When did you take the course?
5. Did you ask to be sent on to SXSW? Or did they choose to send you?
6. When did you go?
7. When did they reimburse the event?
8. Was going to SXSW a condition of employment or in any way construed to be part of doing your job?
The advice needs to take these points into account. Otherwise, we don't really know what your situation is
posted by acoutu at 2:58 PM on April 22, 2008
Oh, well, since the other company had been courting you before SXSW and you took the job in full knowledge that they would access you this fee I think that morally you should pay it. I don't really think the policy is negative. Its a business, they pay for your education to help both of you, not just you personally. I would ask if they can set up a repayment plan, so the burden of the full amount isn't on you all at once.
posted by stormygrey at 3:00 PM on April 22, 2008
posted by stormygrey at 3:00 PM on April 22, 2008
If you officially acknowledged the policy, and it preceded your trip, I don't think you really have a leg to stand on outside of "But I don't want to!"
(As a response to phearlez, at least in my experience, such policies are pretty much universal - employers who're willing to pay for outside training want to make sure you're not going to take advantage of that policy and immediately bolt. It's not super-nice to employees, but it doesn't strike me as "negative and counter-productive" in any noteworthy way.
posted by Tomorrowful at 3:00 PM on April 22, 2008
(As a response to phearlez, at least in my experience, such policies are pretty much universal - employers who're willing to pay for outside training want to make sure you're not going to take advantage of that policy and immediately bolt. It's not super-nice to employees, but it doesn't strike me as "negative and counter-productive" in any noteworthy way.
posted by Tomorrowful at 3:00 PM on April 22, 2008
Wait- are you quitting or were you fired/laid off? If you quit, and you knew about the policy, you are SOL and the company is absolutely right to charge you for it.
posted by gjc at 3:12 PM on April 22, 2008
posted by gjc at 3:12 PM on April 22, 2008
I'd simply ask the new company to pay this fee for you. It's a relatively tiny amount of money, even for a small business. Seems like a reasonable request to me (being a small business owner). Look at it as a relocation expense of sorts.
posted by BirdD0g at 3:12 PM on April 22, 2008 [5 favorites]
posted by BirdD0g at 3:12 PM on April 22, 2008 [5 favorites]
It was added to the handbook before SXSW, and I did sign an acknowledgement.
Then you're liable for it. However if this is true: "In numerous cases I have worked long stretches of overtime with little to no bonus compensation" AND YOU HAVE DOCUMENTATION OF THIS, then you might be able to make a case to the company that you don't owe. But that's a big might and relies on sympathy.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:16 PM on April 22, 2008
Then you're liable for it. However if this is true: "In numerous cases I have worked long stretches of overtime with little to no bonus compensation" AND YOU HAVE DOCUMENTATION OF THIS, then you might be able to make a case to the company that you don't owe. But that's a big might and relies on sympathy.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:16 PM on April 22, 2008
I'd simply ask the new company to pay this fee for you. It's a relatively tiny amount of money, even for a small business. Seems like a reasonable request to me (being a small business owner). Look at it as a relocation expense of sorts.
+1
posted by ZakDaddy at 3:36 PM on April 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
+1
posted by ZakDaddy at 3:36 PM on April 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
The "then you're liable for it" comments above assume that this is legal and enforceable. Not all things are, even if they are in the employee manual.
If they sent you to SxSW, then they are liable for your travel and conference expenses, including the cost of the conference. Presumably the company benefited from being represented at this conference, as well as benefited from whatever information you brought back from it.
By the way, worst case, you can deduct these expenses from your taxes as unreimbursed business expenses.
posted by zippy at 3:38 PM on April 22, 2008
If they sent you to SxSW, then they are liable for your travel and conference expenses, including the cost of the conference. Presumably the company benefited from being represented at this conference, as well as benefited from whatever information you brought back from it.
By the way, worst case, you can deduct these expenses from your taxes as unreimbursed business expenses.
posted by zippy at 3:38 PM on April 22, 2008
It was added to the handbook before SXSW, and I did sign an acknowledgement.
Well there you go then, I think its crystal clear that you need to repay 75% of the costs incurred. Yes, you worked long hours and unpaid overtime, but barring the fact that you are not exempt and your company has unlawfully been neglecting to pay you overtime, those factors do not play a role in whether or not you should be allowed to neglect this recent addition to the policy.
posted by Asherah at 3:43 PM on April 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
Well there you go then, I think its crystal clear that you need to repay 75% of the costs incurred. Yes, you worked long hours and unpaid overtime, but barring the fact that you are not exempt and your company has unlawfully been neglecting to pay you overtime, those factors do not play a role in whether or not you should be allowed to neglect this recent addition to the policy.
posted by Asherah at 3:43 PM on April 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
At my most recent employer, I'm pretty sure that a clear distinction was drawn between education and conferences. The former was specifically certification- or degree-oriented stuff, while the latter was, you know, the normal conference thing, showing the flag, chatting people up, and generally being aware of the happenings in the industry. While they did want you to pay-up if they bought you a semester of grad school and then quit, conference-going was partly an employee responsibility, and they'd get on you if you weren't attending something at least annually. Are you sure that's not the case with you?
posted by mumkin at 3:51 PM on April 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by mumkin at 3:51 PM on April 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
IANAL, but you sound pretty liable. You can ask them nicely to forgive it or reduce it. You can ask your new employer if they would consider covering it.
They should be paying out any unused vacation...if you have any, that'll help offset the cost.
posted by desuetude at 3:59 PM on April 22, 2008
They should be paying out any unused vacation...if you have any, that'll help offset the cost.
posted by desuetude at 3:59 PM on April 22, 2008
This all depends on what you did or did not sign. While your employers might be total bastards, if you put your name to any of their terms, then they have the upper hand.
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:02 PM on April 22, 2008
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:02 PM on April 22, 2008
Well, if you signed the agreement before the trip, you're pretty much stuck. However, it doesn't hurt to ask/beg/lay a guilt trip on them. You do have one bargaining chip, and that's to not work the next two weeks at all. That would certainly put you on bad terms with them, though, and probably wouldn't be worth the $800 in the long run.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 4:27 PM on April 22, 2008
posted by Mr. Gunn at 4:27 PM on April 22, 2008
However if this is true: "In numerous cases I have worked long stretches of overtime with little to no bonus compensation" AND YOU HAVE DOCUMENTATION OF THIS, then you might be able to make a case to the company that you don't owe. But that's a big might and relies on sympathy.
Umm... uncompensated overtime has nothing to do with the current issue. In fact, OP's entire paragraph starting "I have been a model employee." is completely useless here. Whether or not he's liable has nothing to do with how good of a person/employee he is.
There's a lot of labor law at play here, and it's worth going to see an attorney. From a moral standpoint, though, here are the things that matter to me:
If he's lucky, he'll find an attorney who feels like taking the case and he'll either have some convenient anti-employer law on his side or the employer won't feel like making a big deal of it.
Either way, it's a pretty low-class thing to do. Just pay the money you owe and be happy that you got to go to SxSW for 25% off.
posted by toomuchpete at 4:33 PM on April 22, 2008
Umm... uncompensated overtime has nothing to do with the current issue. In fact, OP's entire paragraph starting "I have been a model employee." is completely useless here. Whether or not he's liable has nothing to do with how good of a person/employee he is.
There's a lot of labor law at play here, and it's worth going to see an attorney. From a moral standpoint, though, here are the things that matter to me:
- I have been working at a medium sized interactive agency for 18 months.
- In March, my current company paid for me to attend SXSW.
- Our employee handbook states [that I have to pay back 75%].
- It was added to the handbook before SXSW, and I did sign an acknowledgement.
- I have accepted an offer at another company, and given two weeks notice.
- In my case, my new employer has been trying to hire me well before SXSW.
- SxSW was about 6 weeks ago.
If he's lucky, he'll find an attorney who feels like taking the case and he'll either have some convenient anti-employer law on his side or the employer won't feel like making a big deal of it.
Either way, it's a pretty low-class thing to do. Just pay the money you owe and be happy that you got to go to SxSW for 25% off.
posted by toomuchpete at 4:33 PM on April 22, 2008
Isn't it important to know what you did at SXSW? Were you there just for the seminars/classes? Did you get up a noon, drink, and go to shows the whole time? Did you stand behind a booth and hand out literature for 12 hours a day? If you did anything to represent your company (not just to make yourself a better developer) start discounting. That's a business trip and you're not responsible for reimbursing business expenses.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 4:52 PM on April 22, 2008
posted by the christopher hundreds at 4:52 PM on April 22, 2008
note that in some places, like california, some types of computer-related jobs are specifically exempted from eligibility for overtime pay. if this applies to you and you do, in fact, owe for the conference, you can't claim that the overtime cancels it out, because you aren't entitled to it in the first place.
i think your only window of escape here is the vagueness of the language in the handbook, but it looks to me like you should pay.
posted by klanawa at 5:00 PM on April 22, 2008
i think your only window of escape here is the vagueness of the language in the handbook, but it looks to me like you should pay.
posted by klanawa at 5:00 PM on April 22, 2008
Pay for it, then get them to pay you for the over-time.
posted by blue_beetle at 5:00 PM on April 22, 2008
posted by blue_beetle at 5:00 PM on April 22, 2008
If it was an event/education program designed to improve your prospects of the employer, it may not fall under the contract. However, if it was for your benefit, you most likely need to pay it back.
You can check labour laws and separately file for overtime pay.
posted by acoutu at 5:30 PM on April 22, 2008
You can check labour laws and separately file for overtime pay.
posted by acoutu at 5:30 PM on April 22, 2008
Like the others, I wonder what your duties were at SXSW. If you attended interactive panels for the purpose of learning information for use in your job, that could be considered education. However, if you want to hobnob and promote your org, I wouldn't consider it continuing ed. If you did both, you may want to bring up that you were there representing the company, for the benefit of the company and see if they're willing to cut you some slack.
posted by fructose at 6:15 PM on April 22, 2008
posted by fructose at 6:15 PM on April 22, 2008
As a response to phearlez, at least in my experience, such policies are pretty much universal - employers who're willing to pay for outside training want to make sure you're not going to take advantage of that policy and immediately bolt. It's not super-nice to employees, but it doesn't strike me as "negative and counter-productive" in any noteworthy way.
I dispute that it's anywhere close to universal, but I have nothing beyond anecdotal evidence to back that up. As far as my assessment of it: It discourages professional development, and is therefor negative. It's counter-productive in that it's in the interest of an employer to have a motivated, curious, constantly learning workforce, and the fact is that employers want to hire people who are keeping their skills up to date, and thus are likely quite interested in bringing in people who have improved their skills lately. Thus they're trying to have their cake and eat it too, which is shitty. It has nothing to do with being 'super-nice' to employees, it's about being an attractive and welcoming place to work, and the reality is that places that are appealing and supportive of employee advancement don't have retention issues such that this is a significant cost.
Thus why I say it's a small price to pay to put this place behind you, sharkweek. Depending on the language in what you signed you may be able to make an issue of the representing-the-company vs professional development cause, but I wouldn't bet my rent on it. Asking your new employer to pick up the tab is a good idea too, but probably too late if you've already accepted.
As far as uncompensated overtime, welcome to the new economy. The number of groups that can be classified such that they are not protected by overtime laws (which previously required that you had some notable management responsibility) were expanded by an order of magnitude in the first term of the Bush administration. Pretty much any information technology professional who draws a salary rather than an hourly wage can be asked to work a tremendous number of hours past 40/wk without additional compensation and requesting to be paid for it is pointless. Here's the explanation from the State of Oregon, though it's really talking about Federal laws.
Oregon's labor site indicates that they met their obligation in informing you of the change in benefits. However they do not seem to be entitled to garnish your wages to get repaid for this. If they're a small operation and unaware of this you could let them go ahead and do it and then use the law against them. It wouldn't take long for it to be cheaper for them to agree to waive the repayment in exchange for your not pursuing the legal remedies.
If they're wise to the law they're going to pay you and demand a check, in which case you have little bargaining leverage. They have pretty good basis for starting collections proceedings if you refuse to play along, and while I think their policy is dumb I think it would be dumber for you to get involved in an action that potentially will get back to your new employer and potentially make them think you can't be trusted to live up to your word.
posted by phearlez at 7:28 PM on April 22, 2008
I dispute that it's anywhere close to universal, but I have nothing beyond anecdotal evidence to back that up. As far as my assessment of it: It discourages professional development, and is therefor negative. It's counter-productive in that it's in the interest of an employer to have a motivated, curious, constantly learning workforce, and the fact is that employers want to hire people who are keeping their skills up to date, and thus are likely quite interested in bringing in people who have improved their skills lately. Thus they're trying to have their cake and eat it too, which is shitty. It has nothing to do with being 'super-nice' to employees, it's about being an attractive and welcoming place to work, and the reality is that places that are appealing and supportive of employee advancement don't have retention issues such that this is a significant cost.
Thus why I say it's a small price to pay to put this place behind you, sharkweek. Depending on the language in what you signed you may be able to make an issue of the representing-the-company vs professional development cause, but I wouldn't bet my rent on it. Asking your new employer to pick up the tab is a good idea too, but probably too late if you've already accepted.
As far as uncompensated overtime, welcome to the new economy. The number of groups that can be classified such that they are not protected by overtime laws (which previously required that you had some notable management responsibility) were expanded by an order of magnitude in the first term of the Bush administration. Pretty much any information technology professional who draws a salary rather than an hourly wage can be asked to work a tremendous number of hours past 40/wk without additional compensation and requesting to be paid for it is pointless. Here's the explanation from the State of Oregon, though it's really talking about Federal laws.
Oregon's labor site indicates that they met their obligation in informing you of the change in benefits. However they do not seem to be entitled to garnish your wages to get repaid for this. If they're a small operation and unaware of this you could let them go ahead and do it and then use the law against them. It wouldn't take long for it to be cheaper for them to agree to waive the repayment in exchange for your not pursuing the legal remedies.
If they're wise to the law they're going to pay you and demand a check, in which case you have little bargaining leverage. They have pretty good basis for starting collections proceedings if you refuse to play along, and while I think their policy is dumb I think it would be dumber for you to get involved in an action that potentially will get back to your new employer and potentially make them think you can't be trusted to live up to your word.
posted by phearlez at 7:28 PM on April 22, 2008
Do you get paid so little that making this reimbursement might drop you below the minimum wage for some time period? Unfortunately, I don't know which time period to compare to, but you might call your local labor department and ask.
posted by grouse at 12:22 AM on April 23, 2008
posted by grouse at 12:22 AM on April 23, 2008
Response by poster: Thanks for all the great replies...
A few responses/more info:
-In looking through the company handbook in more detail, it seems they also don't pay out for unused time off. This seems counter to the law, unless the word "termination" only applies to workers who are laid off/fired. Insights?
-SXSW was 50/50 spreading the company name and attending panels.
-In talking with my coworkers, they were as surprised as I was about the repayment policy. We all signed the same form acknowledging changes in policy, but I think we were all so excited about the training budget that we forgot to read the fine print. Needless to say, this has discouraged many of them from using their training budget in the future.
Thanks again for all the helpful responses.
posted by sharkweek at 10:10 AM on April 23, 2008
A few responses/more info:
-In looking through the company handbook in more detail, it seems they also don't pay out for unused time off. This seems counter to the law, unless the word "termination" only applies to workers who are laid off/fired. Insights?
-SXSW was 50/50 spreading the company name and attending panels.
-In talking with my coworkers, they were as surprised as I was about the repayment policy. We all signed the same form acknowledging changes in policy, but I think we were all so excited about the training budget that we forgot to read the fine print. Needless to say, this has discouraged many of them from using their training budget in the future.
Thanks again for all the helpful responses.
posted by sharkweek at 10:10 AM on April 23, 2008
You are not reading that link you pasted carefully enough.
Your employer is, however, required to honor any established policy or agreement relating to the payment of benefits such as accrued vacation or severance pay upon termination. If you qualify for payment of benefits under the employer´s policy, you should be paid for these upon termination. For more information, contact the Wage and Hour Division.
So they can do either way (or pay a percentage, or whatever) so long as they are consistent and their policy is established. You -might- be able to make the claim that you are owed the vacation you accrued prior to the change in policy, however if there was no written policy prior I think you'd have an uphill battle.
So take some vacation days before your last day and spend them thinking how lucky you are to be leaving this place.
posted by phearlez at 11:21 AM on April 23, 2008
Your employer is, however, required to honor any established policy or agreement relating to the payment of benefits such as accrued vacation or severance pay upon termination. If you qualify for payment of benefits under the employer´s policy, you should be paid for these upon termination. For more information, contact the Wage and Hour Division.
So they can do either way (or pay a percentage, or whatever) so long as they are consistent and their policy is established. You -might- be able to make the claim that you are owed the vacation you accrued prior to the change in policy, however if there was no written policy prior I think you'd have an uphill battle.
So take some vacation days before your last day and spend them thinking how lucky you are to be leaving this place.
posted by phearlez at 11:21 AM on April 23, 2008
-SXSW was 50/50 spreading the company name and attending panels.
Assuming you didn't beg and plead to go to SXSW because it would make you such a better employee and "spreading the company name" wasn't just wearing a name tag while drinking: Tell them this was a business trip. If you feel nice, tell them you'll pay the 75% of the half of the admission price that was used for you to learn things. But Hotel and travel is on them.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 1:55 PM on April 23, 2008
Assuming you didn't beg and plead to go to SXSW because it would make you such a better employee and "spreading the company name" wasn't just wearing a name tag while drinking: Tell them this was a business trip. If you feel nice, tell them you'll pay the 75% of the half of the admission price that was used for you to learn things. But Hotel and travel is on them.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 1:55 PM on April 23, 2008
It was added to the handbook before SXSW, and I did sign an acknowledgement.
Right, so pony up.
And seriously, do not be an ass and burn this bridge over $800 when you're off to a new job. These people will be a reference on your CV for way, way longer than it's going to take you to make a grand.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:19 PM on April 23, 2008
Right, so pony up.
And seriously, do not be an ass and burn this bridge over $800 when you're off to a new job. These people will be a reference on your CV for way, way longer than it's going to take you to make a grand.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:19 PM on April 23, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Freedomboy at 2:51 PM on April 22, 2008