Dumb question. If an employer wants you to move then (a) Pay relocation costs. (b) Offer a REAL employment contract for a specified period. Employees may need an agent (just like pro sports) and pay a percentage but if you get cut then you know what your payout will be. I think item B is where employers will balk and blame the potential employee as "difficult"
Most relocation packages are pro-rated over one or two years even, or are required to be payed back in full if there is a separation within that period (willful or not by either party).
My point is even with relocation assistance, the deal is still not great (could draw a very strained parallel to indentured servitude). Which is to say, not super appealing.
Any reasonable contract (not the default one, but one you push back to get) will include a clause that all repayable benefits are only if you quit, not if they terminate employment. (Some will include terminate with cause) .
I got a signing bonus, and if they lay me off then they lose their signing bonus. Yes i negotiated that into my contract.
Sure not all deals are good and that's why you shouldn't agree to all deals. I personally wouldn't even call it a relocation package, if I could be fired (without cause at least) and then forced to repay it afterwards. I'm glad (or at least lucky) that I don't need to consider such a ridiculous arrangement.
I think we're all in general agreement in this thread. If a company gives a bad deal for relocation, it's no surprise it is unattractive. I was pointing out that even relocation assistance is often part of that bad deal.
