What founders and career starters should really watch for

It always feels like a win—after hundreds of applications, you finally get an offer. But what if that offer comes with strings attached? A Reddit user recently shared their dilemma after landing an audit job in Singapore that came with an 18-month bond. On paper, the offer looked solid. But the fine print revealed a two-month notice period and a clause requiring repayment of three months’ salary if the bond was broken early.

Some might say: “It’s just a bond—take the job.” But if you’ve ever run a startup or managed early hires, you’ll know: these clauses aren't just legal terms. They’re signals. And if you pay attention, they tell you a lot more about the company than the interview ever did.

In theory, employment bonds are supposed to protect a company’s investment in training. But in practice, especially in mid-tier firms or roles with high churn, bonds often become a proxy for control. And control rarely signals confidence.

If a firm is secure in its culture, reputation, and runway, it doesn’t need to scare employees into staying. But when teams are stretched, management is under pressure, and exits are happening faster than onboarding can keep up—that’s when these contracts get weaponized.

The Reddit thread lit up with warnings. Toxic culture. Sudden firings. Bonds that make you feel trapped, especially if you’ve got financial commitments like a car loan or a BTO flat. The real cost, commenters argued, isn’t the three-month penalty. It’s the psychological tax of knowing you can’t leave even if things go bad.

If you’re leading a company—especially one still in early stages—you might be tempted to use bonds the same way. It’s a seductive logic: “If we just make it harder for people to leave, maybe we’ll retain better.”

But what actually happens is the opposite. The best people don’t sign those contracts. Or they sign with one foot out the door. And those who stay? They don’t stay for growth. They stay out of fear. That’s not alignment. That’s resentment waiting to surface.

Worse, it creates a culture where trust is transactional. Bonds might delay turnover, but they also delay learning. If people can’t leave, they often stop speaking up. They stop taking risks. And suddenly, you’ve got a quiet team, not a committed one.

The original poster didn’t say yes immediately. Instead, they turned to community. They asked for real stories. They read reviews on Glassdoor. They wanted to know: Is this a standard term, or a warning sign?

This is the same diligence we expect founders to do when taking funding, hiring senior roles, or entering markets. Yet somehow, when it comes to employment contracts—especially for junior roles—we forget that the same logic applies. Not all offers are worth the cost.

And here’s the bigger takeaway: if your instinct says “this feels off,” it probably is. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take the job. But it does mean you walk in with eyes wide open—and a Plan B. Every founder learns this lesson the hard way: the most expensive mistake isn’t always financial. It’s time.

An 18-month bond doesn’t just risk money. It locks someone into a system they might want out of in six months. That’s six months of drift, disengagement, or outright damage—before you even hit the clause that forces repayment.

From a startup perspective, this is the real risk of binding contracts: misfit that compounds. Whether it's hiring, fundraising, or partnerships—alignment always beats enforcement.

In the end, the question isn’t whether employment bonds are fair or legal. It’s whether they signal the kind of company you want to grow in—or grow with.

To the jobseeker on Reddit: You’re not wrong to hesitate. And to the founders reading this: If you need a bond to keep someone, you’ve already lost them.