Is this a legal document?

[pralay]

Nothing is done for benifit of employee, whether it is gc or head hunting.
It is only the need of employer.
if employer cannot find a suitable person in the US, they get someone from outside the US ( and hence sponsor the GC).
looking at in broad terms, its just the cost of finding a suitable employee...wether headhunting or sponsoring..

From employer's viewpoint, yes they are same. From employee's or headhunter's viewpoints they are not same - atleast not in US job market (that's why we don't call it "jobhunting"). Yes, employer is free to put that condition (headhunting expense) on offer letter (unless it offends local labor rule) and if some to-be-employee wants to sign that offer letter and join, good for him. And BTW, a headhunter would not want that kind of contract on offer letter - because of his business interest (unless they are highprofile headhunters who helps to recruit CEO or similar jobs).

Lastly, the question is not about similarity between GC and headhunting, but about validity of contract. Any contract is valid as long as it conforms to local law (labor rule or other). The content of contract and it's fairness - that's court to decide.

And usually the company will pay for the H1 etc...but not for the GC. at least mine did not...

For any processing, the petitioner should pay for the expense. For H1 employer is the petitioner. Similarly in LC or I-140 filing employer is the petitioner. Technically after I-140 approval, employee should file I-485 (or CP) . But in general many employers cover the whole processing expenses (LC, I140, I485 or family-member's I485s too). On the other hand, some employer don't - that's the deal (or no-deal) between employer and employee.

 

[pralay]

sorry to get off topic.

pralay, where have you been?

haven't seen you post in a few months.

what else! vacation, vacation, vacation!

 

[hipka]

It's not just "giving a job", but bringing an alien to USA thru GC process and then giving a job. Now, this GC process is not cheap. When employers spends some money for that process, it's fair for employer to expect that the concerned employee will work for that company for "certain period of time". Or, if the employee does not work that period then he/she has to return "certain amount of the GC process expense". Now, if the "certain period of time" is too long (like you said, 10 years) or the "certain amount" is too much (much greater than the actual processing expense) then the employee can argue about it (and go to court). So for this kind of situation you can argue about content of the contract or the fairness of that content, but the contract itself is not invalid.

For example, one of my close friends who got her GC thru one of the big company in bay area, she had following condition in her offer letter:

The company is willing to sponsor her GC on the condition that she will serve the company for certain period. Otherwise, after GC processing starts, if she leaves she has to return certain amount to company (paid by company at that point for GC process).
If she leaves before 1 year after joining, she has to return full expense.
If she leaves between 1-1.5 year, she has to return half of the expense.
If she leave between 1.5-2 year after joining she has to return one fourth.
After 2 years she does not need to return anything.

Now, her GC processing took more than 2 years after she joined that company.

Was that condition fair. I guess so.

In the case of ddvs who originally posted the question the contract stated that he has to stay with the company for two years after GC processing. GC processing by itself takes around 2 yrs so the total time is around 4 years which makes it excessive according to me. It would be interesting to see what an attorney says though. This is the reason some smart companies have a policy that they will start processing the GC after 2 yrs of service, that way they don't get into this ezcessive conditions mess!