Employment Bond

[angelina_jolens]

Do companies really sue for this?

[sayuri_succubus]

Yes. It's a contract to protect both parties.

[Crusher]

Morale: Do not sign any contract unless you know all the ramifications and consequences of any stipulation in the contract.
Consult an attorney if you have to.

Once the contract is signed, you and your employer are bound to enforce it. Although, one would think that the contract is for the good of both parties, most of the benefits are usually for the one who designed the contract.

How long should the term of the contract be? If you are confident that you are a competent, talented and a hardworking, fast-learner, a short contract will be beneficial, since you can leave and seek employment somewhere else if you find that your current employer do not recognize your contribution to the company as much, in short the pay is not good enough. Conversely, we know what kind of applicants would like a long term contract.

[Blister]

dapat before mo sinign yung contract binasa mo muna kung baket necessary ang binding. Yung iba kasi they promise training kaya kailangan mag stay ka with them. I'm sure you have a copy, so read it all over again kung bakit kailangan ng binding.

minsan kasi pinagkakakitaan na ng kumpanya yang binding na yan. i know this one company kaya daw may binding kasi they will provide training. The person that I know only stayed there for 1 week. wala pang training na naibibigay. and bcoz of pananakot na idedemanda sya if she didnt pay up, she just paid the said amount para paalisin na lang sya. and they also did that sa iba nilang employees. pinagkakakitaan na nga nila. kaya active sila sa pag hi hire :glee:

know the grounds. read the contract.

then ask for DOLE's help if necessary :bungi:

[Totnak Boy]

I quit my job even if i'm 8 months til the end of my contract.

I just spoke to the HR people, gave them a "legitimate" excuse, and paid damages for breaking the contract.

But all in all it's worth it. Try talking to your HR personnel, especially to the one closest to you :)

[Tifosi]

Is there any chance na you're from accenture? ;) :D

[woofers]

Disclaimer: I'm neither a lawyer nor an HR professional.

Employment contracts specify that you're supposed to work for them in exchange for something. That "something" could be training, a signing bonus, etc. If they don't deliver on their side of the contract, I don't see how they can sue.

[m_i_c_o_y]

if you really understand whats in the contract the youve signed siguro wala ka dapat ipanagam ba. AWOL (Absent Without Official Leave), i think this will do, many kasi of my common friends use this option if they didnt want their f*ck*ng job.

[pulangPinto]

Hi! Anyone out there who knows about the Philippine Labor Code? I'm employed in a company with an employment bond. I want to leave and their asking me 100K. Is this allowed eventhough I havent been given any training? Thanks!

[thehitman]

If there is a contract that specifically stated this employment bond, and you signed it, you are bound to honor it. 'Nuff said.

:cool:

[punch]

i think if there is a contract saying u r bonded once u avail the training and they give you some sort of training alright but u did not sign anything that will prove that there has been a training or u did not receive any certification for the said training, i say fight.... i am guessing u'll win this case if brought to court, first of all the court favors the employee more than they favor the employer in cases like this specially if your employer are not filipinos..... but then again, i suggest you seek your lawyer's opinion.

[pulangPinto]

Thanks for the reply. Actually the HR has been telling me that there is an employment bond to cover for their recruitment expenses and a separate training bond. It's a foreign company alright. A very big foreign company present in most parts of the world.

[LodRose]

buti nga sa friend mo 100k lang. sa friend ko 240k.

:rolleyes:

[pulangPinto]

well, pwede naman ata staggered payments yun eh. wala naman sa contract yun. oh well, syempre pag may job offer sa isang prestigious company basahin mo yung contract and pag naintindihan na eh di tangap. yun nga lang ang dami kase sections na open to interpretation.

[ezdriver]

uuuy... parang alam ko yang company mo ah... let me guess... 3rd floor, MSE building? 2 years contract, 100k bond? hehehe...

di ko nga maintindihan kung bakit kailangan pa ng bond eh usually experienced hire naman sila. kaibigan ko pumatol sa ganyan, ayan pinagsisihan nya ngayon. dapat kasi eh, nakipag-argue at the start, pwede kasing babaan yan, or even tanggalin yan, depende sa usapan.

what i can suggest is to look at the contract again... find possible loopholes, then seek legal advice. gudluck.

[ezdriver]

sometimes, pero so far, ala pa akong naririnig na nananalo yung company. kasi usually, outrageous yung bond nila compared to what they had given to the employee.

in most cases, natatakbuhan yan, problema lang e baka ma-blacklist ka sa industry.

try to explore your legal options. kung di maiwasan na takasan, demand for a prorated amount. at least it will buy you some time... hanggang makalimutan na ng company... (gaya ng ginawa ng kabatchmate ko. hehehe).

[AtAgMsRaAtOk]

Originally posted by LodRose
buti nga sa friend mo 100k lang. sa friend ko 240k.

:rolleyes:
maswerte pa friend mo, sa akin 800K, e 100K = 1 yr sa amin, buti na lang maximum of three years. nakaka 2 years na ko dito kaya 1 year na lang :D

[LodRose]

e wala ka sa friend ng LOLO ko

:D jaz kidding. anong company ba yan? bka **** overseas yan. i think it's too high. IMHO lang.

Originally posted by AtAgMsRaAtOk
maswerte pa friend mo, sa akin 800K, e 100K = 1 yr sa amin, buti na lang maximum of three years. nakaka 2 years na ko dito kaya 1 year na lang :D

[Zeratul]

To all legalese out there, please help my firends with this:

There are several companies out there nowadays who impose 2 year contractual employment bonds on their prospective new recruits. Accenture, SPI, Trend, Fujitsu, and most techie firms love doing this to prevent their workforce from being pirated by other firms who perform "sulutan" or bidding and bribing the workers with higher offers and perks. It's a way of life here in the RP.

Are these bonds unconstitutional? Php 50,000 to Php 100,000 is no damn joke for a regular worker out of college! I heard that there are some ways to circumvent this "bond scare" while still in the company without confronting and antagonizing the people in HR department (this would be a dumb option). If so, how do you go about it if you are offered a juicy job while still on contract?

We do not impose bonds on maids and drivers because they lack the ability to pay and we let them keep what they earn. I believe the labor code states that should there be any doubt, the benefit of the doubt should be awarded to the labor side (employee). Correct me if I am wrong, but signing the job contract means that I waive my rights under the labor code? Is this true?

I am sure everyone (even our bosses) will still be hunting for better job opportunities under the noses of their superiors while still at work. It's an open secret, but we don't want to get caught and pay the price of our own recklessness.

To all attorneys out there, please enlighten the Filipino workers! How do we circumvent this issue?

Thank you. :)

[KuyaDanny]

While considering the constitutionality of such agreements, please also consider that these arrangements aren't necessarily burdensome on only one side. An employee wishing to leave early might find himself stuck, but an employer wishing to release an incompetent employee is equally stuck. Only fair, right?

[thehitman]

Originally posted by KuyaDanny
An employee wishing to leave early might find himself stuck, but an employer wishing to release an incompetent employee is equally stuck.

The bond also prevents an employer from terminating the services of an incompetent employee? Interesting...

:cool:

[OliverWood21]

Just my .02$


I think it benefits both parties (both the employer and the employee). As mentioned, some of the employee's rights may have had been waived by the bond but so is the employer's. They cannot just terminate an insubordinate and incompetent employee just as much as the competent employee not being entitled to resign during the duration of the bond.

But the thing is, I feel like some companies (that are implementing this) are just somewhat ‘insecure’. It seems like it is possible to train and develop fresh grads without having the necessity of imposing a pre-employment bond if they are confident enough that they can provide the employee competitive working environment, career growth and benefits.


Constitutional-wise, looks like we need a lawyer. :)

[KuyaDanny]

Employment contracts (and bonds) have been around at least since I started working. Call centers and IT firms use them today, but back then banks, financial institutions, accounting, and consulting firms used them, too. If these deals are unconstitutional, I wonder why they haven't been challenged all this time.

[mac_bolan00]

it's still in keeping with the principle that arrangements should be biased for the employee.

actually, there are better ways in practice. why impose a bond on an untested new recruit? better to settle that person in first. if he/she shows promise, that's the time to invest in the person. spend for training with the understanding that the employee owes the company a minimum length of service as a result.

[aina_crazy_girl]

i think in this case, the law of contracts applies

[hanskyut]

starts with a letter A ba yang company na yan?

[Zeratul]

Ladies and Gentlemen, that company is....

ACCENTURE.

The bosses you get here are so insecure and arrogant with their newbies coz the turnover is so fast it makes them look like a call center who can't retain its employees. Honestly, you're better off in a call center rather than being stuck with 2 years pro-rated Php 100,000. Magtrabaho ka na lang sa CONVERGYS. They pay higher, plus tell them you have a US Visa so they can send you abroad just like what Accenture does.

Slave-driver kasi ang Accenture lalo na sa mga bagitong graduates ng UP, ADMU, at DLSU. Akala nila alam nila lahat - "Your business process is obsolete. You need to revise your approaches." Putcha! Lintek akala nila alam nila lahat! Ang arogante ng mga boss diyan sa Accenture!

Kaya kung ginugulpi kayo ng Accenture, magpatayo nalang kayo ng KMU / ANAKPAWIS / CPP-NPA chapter sa loob ng management ranks ninyo. Magpa-enlist kayo kay Rep. Satur Ocampo at Crispin Beltran na ginugulpi kayo ng mga MAANGAS na SALOT na KORPORASYON ng mga DAYUHANG KAPITALISTA!!!!

BOYCOTT ACCENTURE!!!!
MABUHAY SINA MARX AT ENGELS!!!!
TAGUMPAY ANG REBOLUSYON NG MGA MANGGAGAWA!!!!
:bop: :bop:

[beefeater]

How about the so-called NON-COMPETE CLAUSES in contracts?

[ezdriver]

Originally posted by KuyaDanny
While considering the constitutionality of such agreements, please also consider that these arrangements aren't necessarily burdensome on only one side. An employee wishing to leave early might find himself stuck, but an employer wishing to release an incompetent employee is equally stuck. Only fair, right?

i think thinking of it that way gives a false sense of security to the employees. this cannot be true all the time, most especially when the company is faced with a financial crises.

just like what happened to my previous company wherein it suffered great losses after the 911 event. majority of its workforce are binded with contracts. what happened? well, the bonds were waived, and they were given separation packages, just like any other companies would.

an employment bond is definitely one-sided in favor of the employers, that is my point of view, unless of course the bond is equal in value with the worth of training the entry level employee got from the company. otherwise, it is a selfish trick being imposed by the employers on the employees... :mad:

[ezdriver]

Originally posted by OliverWood21
I think it benefits both parties (both the employer and the employee). As mentioned, some of the employee's rights may have had been waived by the bond but so is the employer's. They cannot just terminate an insubordinate and incompetent employee just as much as the competent employee not being entitled to resign during the duration of the bond.


are you sure they cannot terminate the services of an incompetent or insubordinate employee? never heard of that... remember, unless specifically stated in the contract that they can't do that, the employers have every right to fire the said employee...

as i've said earlier... adopting this line of thinking is dangerous as it gives you a false sense of security.

[ezdriver]

Originally posted by beefeater
How about the so-called NON-COMPETE CLAUSES in contracts?

a non-compete clause is often imposed in tandem with the employment bond. this policy is to make sure that if ever you wished to terminate your services to your previous company, and decided to pay the bond instead, you cannot work for a rival company or have any transaction in the same field of work.

as you can see, such policies are imposed by employers to make it sure that you will have a very hard time leaving them. whatever angle you view it, the employee is always on the losing side of the agreement.

however, such non-compete clause will always have an expiration. it cannot extend more than a specific length of time.

with regards to the original question of the bond's constitutionality, well, there is indeed a thing called law of contracts. once it is signed and notarized, it means you have fully understood and agreed to the terms of the company in exchange for your employment. no question about that, even if you bring it to court!!! the only argument you can have is, when the contract specifies that the stated bond will be the cost of something, like training for example given to you, was the said amount equal in value to the training you received? if you feel that the bond value is way too much for what you received from the company (say you indeed got training but it was inhouse training only)... NOW THAT CAN BE ARGUED IN COURT...

[beefeater]

Originally posted by ezdriver
a non-compete clause is often imposed in tandem with the employment bond. this policy is to make sure that if ever you wished to terminate your services to your previous company, and decided to pay the bond instead, you cannot work for a rival company or have any transaction in the same field of work.

as you can see, such policies are imposed by employers to make it sure that you will have a very hard time leaving them. whatever angle you view it, the employee is always on the losing side of the agreement.

however, such non-compete clause will always have an expiration. it cannot extend more than a specific length of time.

That's how I understand also. Here's my kick. I am already past the mandated 6-month employment bond period, so since I'm past the employment bond period does it also mean na wala nang bisa ang non-compete clause? I have applied to another call center (during the final interview with that CC I told them that I just filed my resignation from my current company and that its effectivity would be on month's end pa) and they called me to ask if I have in my contract that non-compete clause coz if I do have one, I should ask for a waiver from my current company so that there'd be no legal complications and I have to submit that waiver to the compnay which called me. I checked on all the papers that I signed into when I accepted the job offer -- the training contract and the Pica -- and I didn't see a speck of the said clause. Worse, since I lasted for more than 6 months with the company and that according to my peers the regularization is automatic already, I haven't even recieved a new contract regarding regularization and its terms since i already intimated that I would resign when the 6 months came.

Now another problem is I heard also that we indeed have a non-compete clause, so I have to see our HR officer to clear things out. Do you think when I talk to our HR officer should I be straightforward about my situation? It elps to be honest although I'm also aware that there'd be repercussions for such, especially now that the trend is that most companies hate turn-overs or attrition. :(

[ezdriver]

non-compete clause have an expiry date...

i think i have mentioned this in another thread....

anyway, the non-compete clause, as i know it in an IT field, WILL ONLY TAKE EFFECT if you decided to leave a company before an agreed length of service is met... that is, if you have a contract with them and you decided to pay the employment bond. the non-compete clause is included in the contract for such cases to prevent employees from being pirated by other rival companies.
(because one of the primary reasons why the employee wants to leave a company is when he finds some other company who will offer them a more handsome compensation).

now, such clauses have expirations, usually within 6 months time (as no other company will be willing to wait that long for you to start, just in case you get pirated). if you are saying that it doesn't have an expiration date, then that will be very arguable, even in courts of law.

beefeater, in your case, the 6 months you mentioned is just your stay with the company, not after you left it. that's a different story. with regards to your contract, seek a legal advice with regards to the interpretation of your contract, maybe you tend to be biased in interpreting the statements. :D otherwise, if there really are no clauses in there, you are actually free to go.

[beefeater]

Originally posted by ezdriver
non-compete clause have an expiry date...

i think i have mentioned this in another thread....

anyway, the non-compete clause, as i know it in an IT field, WILL ONLY TAKE EFFECT if you decided to leave a company before an agreed length of service is met... that is, if you have a contract with them and you decided to pay the employment bond. the non-compete clause is included in the contract for such cases to prevent employees from being pirated by other rival companies.
(because one of the primary reasons why the employee wants to leave a company is when he finds some other company who will offer them a more handsome compensation).

This should also apply with call centers, right?

Originally posted by ezdriver
now, such clauses have expirations, usually within 6 months time (as no other company will be willing to wait that long for you to start, just in case you get pirated). if you are saying that it doesn't have an expiration date, then that will be very arguable, even in courts of law.

beefeater, in your case, the 6 months you mentioned is just your stay with the company, not after you left it. that's a different story. with regards to your contract, seek a legal advice with regards to the interpretation of your contract, maybe you tend to be biased in interpreting the statements. :D otherwise, if there really are no clauses in there, you are actually free to go. [/B]

Thanks again for the reply; right now I'm still in a quandary. because I was examining last night my Pica (Proprietory Info & Confidentiality Agreement) and I came across with something. Does this qualify for the Non-Compete Clause (not explicitly stated, but was itemized) -- I'll be sending it to you by way of PM. Besides, I haven't signed my regularization contract yet as they haven't served me one.

And the thing is, if ever there is or that thing I'll be PM'ing you qualify as a Non-Compete Clause, they informed me that the best thing for me to do is that i should secure a waiver from my present company regarding that clause. Do you think is it allowed or would they be willing? I'll talk to our HR people tomorrow.

[ezdriver]

hi beefeater, i already answered your PM. :D

my answer on that, yes, it is a non-compete clause...

with regards to the waiver thing... i really don't get that. what is that for? something like a certification or something that actually tells you are cleared to be employed by another company?

[beefeater]

Originally posted by ezdriver
hi beefeater, i already answered your PM. :D

my answer on that, yes, it is a non-compete clause...

with regards to the waiver thing... i really don't get that. what is that for? something like a certification or something that actually tells you are cleared to be employed by another company?

Thanks to your reply on my PM.

As for the waiver...the other company asked me to secure a waiver from my present company. It is a waiver of the said clause for my perusal, so that I could be cleared to be employed by another company. Do you think it would be possible? Anyways, I was the one unilaterally terminating my employment because I was not happy with the job that I was doing, and the thing is, I am transferring to a job (same industry though) that requires a different function -- that is, still on the phones, but instead of making calls and telemarketing something, I take calls for customer service.

[ezdriver]

well, everything's possible... but this i will assure you, wou will definitely have a hard time securing that kind of waiver. most probably, you will be denied the first time. it's up to your arguments that will secure you the waiver thing... as i've said to you earlier, we had had that kind of experience, and we did fine.

good luck!

[faith4]

hi, pulangPinto! How long did you stay with the company? I stayed for 6 weeks. I left last year and I haven't paid a cent yet. A year after I left, I received a letter from their lawyers saying I have to pay 100k within 5 days or they'll file appropriate charges against me. I haven't paid anything and I don't think they've filed anything against me.

I asked some lawyers and they said that although the contract's valid, I could appeal to their "humane" side and ask that the price be lowered to a reasonable amount since I didn't receive 100k worth of training.

I know several people who left before the 2 years were up and didn't pay anything so if you're willing to take the risk, join the club! If they ask you to pay in a couple of years at least you're (hopefully) in a better job and you'll be more capable of paying.

good luck!

[mark_mark]

Originally posted by OliverWood21
Just my .02$


I think it benefits both parties (both the employer and the employee). As mentioned, some of the employee's rights may have had been waived by the bond but so is the employer's. They cannot just terminate an insubordinate and incompetent employee just as much as the competent employee not being entitled to resign during the duration of the bond.

But the thing is, I feel like some companies (that are implementing this) are just somewhat ‘insecure’. It seems like it is possible to train and develop fresh grads without having the necessity of imposing a pre-employment bond if they are confident enough that they can provide the employee competitive working environment, career growth and benefits.


Constitutional-wise, looks like we need a lawyer. :)

How could this be true? I know from somebody who was recently hired by P&G. Yes, there is a bond. But he was asked to resign after4 months due to bad performance. Isn't this contradictory to your statements?

[mark_mark]

Originally posted by ezdriver
i think thinking of it that way gives a false sense of security to the employees. this cannot be true all the time, most especially when the company is faced with a financial crises.

just like what happened to my previous company wherein it suffered great losses after the 911 event. majority of its workforce are binded with contracts. what happened? well, the bonds were waived, and they were given separation packages, just like any other companies would.

an employment bond is definitely one-sided in favor of the employers, that is my point of view, unless of course the bond is equal in value with the worth of training the entry level employee got from the company. otherwise, it is a selfish trick being imposed by the employers on the employees... :mad:

i totally agree!!!

[OliverWood21]

Originally posted by ezdriver
are you sure they cannot terminate the services of an incompetent or insubordinate employee? never heard of that... remember, unless specifically stated in the contract that they can't do that, the employers have every right to fire the said employee...

as i've said earlier... adopting this line of thinking is dangerous as it gives you a false sense of security.

I don't know about some companies, but in my previous employer, the answer is YES. It came about that this coworker of mine went to Japan for a 6-month training and together with this was a 2-year contract (not just a bond but a contract). This means that he is also entitled of receiving his 2 year full salary if just so happened that the company decides to downsize or drop him for any reasons as much as he is not entitled to leave the company unless he pays the cost of the entire 6-month training that he's had. Seems like fair enough.

But then again, I notice that the company you people are referring to does not practice the same principle when it comps to pre-employment bonds. Too bad. :(

[KuyaDanny]

Originally posted by mark_mark
How could this be true? I know from somebody who was recently hired by P&G. Yes, there is a bond. But he was asked to resign after4 months due to bad performance. Isn't this contradictory to your statements?

When your friend quit, did he have to pay?

[OliverWood21]

Originally posted by mark_mark
How could this be true? I know from somebody who was recently hired by P&G. Yes, there is a bond. But he was asked to resign after4 months due to bad performance. Isn't this contradictory to your statements?


Can you give me more info on this? ;)
Because as far as I know, P&G is one of the companies here in the country which does not give such bonds. They will give you training (locally and even internationally) but they will never tie you up unlike :shutup:

[ezdriver]

Originally posted by OliverWood21
I don't know about some companies, but in my previous employer, the answer is YES. It came about that this coworker of mine went to Japan for a 6-month training and together with this was a 2-year contract (not just a bond but a contract). This means that he is also entitled of receiving his 2 year full salary if just so happened that the company decides to downsize or drop him for any reasons as much as he is not entitled to leave the company unless he pays the cost of the entire 6-month training that he's had. Seems like fair enough.

But then again, I notice that the company you people are referring to does not practice the same principle when it comps to pre-employment bonds. Too bad. :(

but the dilemma stated in the above problem is terminating an erring employee. everyone in his right mind will agree that an employer will have every right to fire him, with contract or not... don't you agree with that?

unless it is otherwise written in the contract, and usually they are not, employers usually are not bound by obligation to provide the employee an assured two years worth of employment. it is often only in the deduction that the employee will receive that term, but in reality, it is not. look at most contracts, try to analyze it carefully; most of them, if not all, doesn't have any clauses stating the company's obliged to assure the employee of a term equal to the period for him to serve the said employer. it was only deduced, not stating, that it would, in the assumption that business will still be brisk just as when the contract was signed.

but again, i might be wrong.

[OliverWood21]

Originally posted by ezdriver
but the dilemma stated in the above problem is terminating an erring employee. everyone in his right mind will agree that an employer will have every right to fire him, with contract or not... don't you agree with that?

unless it is otherwise written in the contract, and usually they are not, employers usually are not bound by obligation to provide the employee an assured two years worth of employment. it is often only in the deduction that the employee will receive that term, but in reality, it is not. look at most contracts, try to analyze it carefully; most of them, if not all, doesn't have any clauses stating the company's obliged to assure the employee of a term equal to the period for him to serve the said employer. it was only deduced, not stating, that it would, in the assumption that business will still be brisk just as when the contract was signed.

but again, i might be wrong.

You are correct ezdriver. But as far as I know (with regards to my former employer ONLY), if you were fired, you get to have the 2-year salary as promised in the contract (or a pro-rated amount maybe) which make me thinks (versus the posts of other Pexers here) that this former employer of mine is indeed more altruistic than top of the line companies in the country (oops, too late for me to realize this because I've already got a new employer :hopeless: )

But then again, I cannot speak in behalf of those people who got employed by companies implementing the pre-employment bond that we were referring to. I never got to sign such bonds in the first place anyway. But just wanted to tell you that I think not all companies are implementing the you-cannot-leave-us-but-we-can-fire-you-if-we-like thingy to their fresh hires (which is the absolute minority). And of course there are some employers which do so and this brings us out again to the topic of its constitutionality ( which unfortunately, is not my cup of tea.. :D )

I feel really lucky not being tied up with a company for a certain number of years without feeling the job security of not being terminated had I been one of those faineant people who always waits for the payroll (but I know I deserve to get myself fired if that's the case) :D If the case would be like ' YOU CANNOT LEAVE BUT I CANNOT BE FORCED OUT', then it is one of those biological relationship called mutualism.. :*) Seems like fair to me.

:rocker:

[April_Loves_Gin]

question, does the employment bond implicate involuntary servitude? kasi ako din may bond, pero it's not the work, it's my boss. she hates me and I feel so emotionally abused everyday. when push comes to shove, i'll be paying the bond worth 100K.

[Coño Guy]

Bonds are sort of a distraction... kung ayaw mo na work mo, pano na. I have a bond, 200k, tpos i have to work for them for three years after graduation from the MT program/ OTP program.

[apols_ph22]

Originally posted by Coño Guy
Bonds are sort of a distraction... kung ayaw mo na work mo, pano na. I have a bond, 200k, tpos i have to work for them for three years after graduation from the MT program/ OTP program.

I know a private bank who does this. I started there. The bank is good. U only have to like ur work. :lol:

[SUPERMANyak]

in accenture, the bond is a two-way thing. if you leave the company before the 2-yr contract ends, you have to pay P100K. If you get fired "for a cause", you also have to pay P100K... That's why i didn't sign it...

So i don't think that the company can't do anything (fire) with a lousy employee even though there's a contract. The company can fire that person if they pleases...