My friend and I are having this "row" about whether its right for a scholar to break his/her bond. We have often argued about this, he is always of the view that its wrong to break the bond, because its a promise. My arguement is that a scholarship contract is no different from an employment contract.
My views:
1) the organization did not give the scholarship for charity / reward sake. They did it for selfish reasons, no less selfish than the reasons leading to any scholar choosing to break their bond. They simply want to retain talent!!
2) Treat both sides equally, then one can see that what is there, is just a simple piece of legal paper. There is no servitude to the organization the scholar did not honour, or gratitude that he/she has ignored.
3) A common argument is that by breaking the bond, the person is denying another person who may want the scholarship, the opportunity. However, is this any different in a normal job situation? A person in applying for a job and getting the job, did he also not deny some other people of that job? so does that mean one can never leave the job? Get serious, opportunitiy costs exist in ALL situations.
4) Lets look at the similarities between an employment contract and a scholarship contract.
Employment contract
in the contract, its stated one will serve XXX Corp faithfully etc.
one's pay is xxxx subject to revision
and should one choose to leave, u must serve 1 month's notice or pay 1 month's pay.
words along that line.
Scholarship contract.
one will study at here and there and uphold the scholarship's name etc. after studies one is bonded to work in xxx for xx years.
the stipend is xxxx, scholarship board will pay for tuition
should one choose to leave the scholarship board, liable to pay xxx in damages.
its written in pretty much exactly the same fashion.
its advertised in exactly the same fashion. put an ad in the newspaper, people apply for it, go interview. some get it, some don't.
My friend's views:
He basically recognizes there are similarities but he points to the moral obligations. His main point is that the moral obligation arises because the scholarship body paid for one's education which is a further stepping stone for onein life. companies don't, plain and simple.
My response to this:
Many companies send their employees for training too, which could really be career extending skill like valuation, advance job knowledge etc. Does this mean that these employees can never leave the organization? Or should one fall back again to the contract at hand?
Ultimately morals are relative, but contracts are not. I find it highly offensive when one claims that scholars who choose to break their bonds did not honour their promise. They did. They paid up the liabilities stated clearly on their contracts, and left.
Do not place the scholarship bodies on a higher moral pedestal than the scholars. If they like to claim that higher ground, then there should not even have been a legal contract to begin with.
I like to hear views from my readers. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Baseball
10 comments:
The companies that award scholarship has to account for the money given out.
"So what happened to our sponsored scholar supposed to start work this month?"
"Oh, he went to join Lehmann Brothers after graduation."
What will shareholders feel?
Obviously the money is accounted for! He voided the contract by paying up the damages stated in the contract! If he had not paid, then they would have sued his pants off already.
So I presume this anger you speak of stems not from the money not being accounted for, but that they would feel angry in that they now have to find another person to replace the bond breaker? Of course they would. One big assumption is that the shareholders are even aware of the scholar...
However are these emotions unique? Would the shareholders feel angry that any employee they had taken pain to headhunt and hire, leave the organization?
The moral part of it is that it may have been the only chance for poorer people to go overseas but they were denied. But I am ok with scholars chaign their mind later down the track but if you go in with the plan to break bond, and disregard the people you are denying, that is a little bit immoral
i think that there are really not that many scholars who go in with intention to break the bond. if they want to, they probably wouldnt take the scholarship to begin with. i have heard of a couple of cases but i would say on the whole, its rare.
nevertheless, I still have 2 questions here for you.
1)whose morals?
2)wats the diff between that and someone taking a job that a really poor and bankrupt person needs and then elaving the job? especially when that person did it deliberately?
i had a friend who deliberately joined a firm for less than 6 months, did not tell the firm that he was definitely going to quit in a couple of months time cos he was going to school actually. but he just wanted to get some cash to tide over that period. he did do the work properly in good faith but his intention was to leave anyway. he probably also denied some other genuine job seekers too. is he immoral?
i think if he deliberately lied or skirted the issue when asked by the company if he is going to be in the job for the long term, then he's not a good person.
the difference in the job-seeker's case is that the employer offers you a job with the assumption that you would probably move on after a period of time. but a scholarship board offers you free education and employment, with the expectation that you will honour your commitment.
i think the reality is, an employer offers you a job with the assumption should you choose to sign the contract, that you are going to do the job well. and should you choose to leave there are these conditions (pay up 1 month or give 1 month notice etc.).
similarly, a scholarship body offers you a scholarship with the assumption should you choose to sign the contract, that you will study in here and here with these terms, and then come back singapore to serve for these number of years, and should you choose not to honour these terms, these are the conditions.
what if the employer never asked the prospective employee if he would leave?
what if your friend had to join a company even if there was a chance he might leave because he will go to school, something that i assume wasnt guaranteed, because he still needs a career to fall back on if he couldnt go back to school and because he is not well off and needs to earn his own money so that his poor parents dont spend that much.
Also, there is a big difference because when you miss the scholarship boat, you miss it. For jobs, its a bit more flexible abt when u can join.
but this friend of mine did deny somebody or many other people possibly the job, did he not?
i agree that jobs are probably more flexible, that part i concede.
Post a Comment