The training costs are not the craziest part of this claim from my perspective: The Skin and Cancer Institute was trying to make her repay US$38,000 in training costs and more than US$100,000 for “loss of business” caused by the company’s inability to transfer Ms Lakey’s responsibilities to someone new.

They we're probably paying a fraction of that as a salary and then want to hold the employee accountable that they can't find a replacement. Crazy world...

Next up, cue the employers complaining that nobody wants to work. This is modern indenture.

I'd prefer to understand the terms here before meeting judgement. The article intentionally avoids the topic by bringing up a point related, but not saying that happened here and then points out what sometimes happens in other places. I do not trust this piece.

Many times these agreements are quite fair (see what I did there).

This is the straitstimes trying to piss off the American electorate