BOND QUESTION

Got a hot employment or interview tip to help a fellow aviator find a job or looking for a little job advice place your posting here.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

BOND QUESTION

Post by Doc »

Hypothetical question here.

Gladys (not her real name) gets an interview. She's bright, has 1500 hours, ATPL's written, and breezes through the interview. She's offered the right seat, but has to pay 10,000$ up front. She hits her local bank, floats a loan, and pays the "bond".

Gladys then goes for SIM training. All is well. She does her line indoc. No problems. She flies the line for two months, then has to take maternity leave.

She returns to work for a week then gets a call from Jazz 13 months after starting her job. The company decides to keep her 10K because she has only "worked" for two months.

Thoughts?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rubberbiscuit
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:02 pm

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by Rubberbiscuit »

Unless there is something in the bond mentioning various leaves, and that time as such does not count toward the required time of employment as laid out in the bond/contract, I do not see how they can do that...

Usually the bond is in effect from the date signed, commencement of training, completeted training or something along those lines, regardless of what happens along the way, firing and layoffs aside.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Nearly all safety regulations are based upon lessons which have been paid for in blood by those who attempted what you are contemplating" Tony Kern
Just another canuck
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2083
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 6:21 am
Location: The Lake.

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by Just another canuck »

Your question is flawed... if she only flew the line for two months, then takes maternity leave, she must have known she was pregnant and should not have got herself in that situation. I think anyway.

And what's her application doing in at Jazz if she's signed a year commitment with this other company? She's on maternity leave with this company, they're paying her and she's handing out resumes to Jazz and others?? That alone seems wrong and this person is no better than the company who took her money.

Bad example, Doc... :wink:

That said, 10,000 dollars is ridiculous, especially for a government funded company like Ornge.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Twenty years from now you'll be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the things you did do.
So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover.
Rubberbiscuit
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:02 pm

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by Rubberbiscuit »

Just another canuck wrote:Your question is flawed... if she only flew the line for two months, then takes maternity leave, she must have known she was pregnant and should not have got herself in that situation. I think anyway.

And what's her application doing in at Jazz if she's signed a year commitment with this other company? She's on maternity leave with this company, they're paying her and she's handing out resumes to Jazz and others?? That alone seems wrong and this person is no better than the company who took her money.

Bad example, Doc... :wink:

That said, 10,000 dollars is ridiculous, especially for a government funded company like Ornge.
I see what you are saying. But how many pilots start at Bearskin, Perimeter, CMA, Georgian etc with some time in their logbook and does not already have their application in at Jazz and other airlines. Nothing wrong with being proactive if that is where you want to end up.

If you hand company "A" XXXXX dollars while hoping that company "B" is going to call that is the risk you run. Don't know if you are entitled to your money back if you only gave company "A" 2 months of service. That is like going on a two week vacation, decide to go home after 1 week and asking for half your money back. If she went to the labour board she'd probably have a case depending on what the bond contract says.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Nearly all safety regulations are based upon lessons which have been paid for in blood by those who attempted what you are contemplating" Tony Kern
beast
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by beast »

I'm actually surprised, doc, that you seem to think she wouldn't be liable for her training expenses in this scenario

i agree with the others - the sudden maternity leave and jazz application indicate she is dealing in bad faith, but even if she wasn't - the costs of training are going to have to be recovered somehow - either through her working at the company, or paying in cash
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by Cat Driver »

In the end Gladys makes out just fine because after the baby was born she had a DNA test done and the baby's father was married in top level management at Ornge the company she paid the bond to.

Gladys not only now has a job with Jazz she has a nice little income from the babys father to keep quite about who the father is.

Gladys knew that getting fucked works both ways. :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Cat Driver on Tue May 05, 2009 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by mbav8r »

Canuck wrote:
And what's her application doing in at Jazz if she's signed a year commitment with this other company? She's on maternity leave with this company, they're paying her and she's handing out resumes to Jazz and others?? That alone seems wrong and this person is no better than the company who took her money.
They are not paying her, the gov. is paying her and I'm not sure how much or exactly how it works but I believe it's like UI. Second why is the question about she, guys can take paternity leave aslo, so I would think the same question applies to a guy signing a bond knowing his wife/girlfriend is pregnant. Either way it would be discriminatory to not hire someone because they're pregnant. I believe Jazz hired someone last year who was pregnant at the time and a couple months after training went on mat leave.
So now are people on here saying if she comes back and then say, WJ calls a couple months after that she shouldn't have taken the job with Jazz in the 1st place or she should not have been applying at WJ. I hope not, that would be ridiculous, because every single person on here was BORN, therefore by default their mother was pregnant at somepoint and would have had to chose, should I apply for this great job, or wait til after the kid is born and hope the job is still available???

I repeat every body on here was BORN, and slagging Gladys is slagging your own mother!!!
So close to mothers day too!!!
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by Doc »

First...I'm on nobody's side here.

She applied to Jazz before she got a job, or wrote a cheque to company A

She didn't know she was pregnant, and took early leave due to complications with said pregnancy.

Toss that in the mix.

I'm using a "she" mbav8r, because "hes" don't tend to get pregnant. Don't tell me you didn't know that?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rubberbiscuit
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:02 pm

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by Rubberbiscuit »

Like I said, the "bond clock" starts ticking when the bond is signed, or at start or end of training most places. If there is something in the contract that say the "bond clock" stops ticking while on maternity leave I'd be surprised.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Nearly all safety regulations are based upon lessons which have been paid for in blood by those who attempted what you are contemplating" Tony Kern
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by mbav8r »

Well if you believe in sci-fi then he's can get pregnant :lol: but I was merely pointing out that both genders can take leave for a pregnancy and the bond issue would be identical. I'll also add that most bonds are pro-rated over time based on a calender and continuous employment. I believe when you are on mat leave you are still employed and in the case of Jazz still acruing seniority. So I think if an employer were to write an exclusion of pregnancy ie; if you become pregnant, while on mat leave the clock stops and begins when you return. I'm no lawyer but I'd bet that would be a human rights issue and discriminatory. You can't put a price on human life like that. Let's say Gladys gets said job, signs a bond, then finds out she's pregnant. Looks at the bond and says to herself, well if I continue this pregnancy I'll have to put in more time than I thought or pay to leave, then she decides(hypothetically) maybe abortion would be better because of her financial situation. I would think a human rights lawyer could make a case on undue duress and make the bond nul and void. Just an opinion

edited, because I realized it's humans rights, not writes
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by mbav8r on Tue May 05, 2009 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"
Rubberbiscuit
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:02 pm

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by Rubberbiscuit »

mbav8r wrote:Well if you believe in sci-fi then he's can get pregnant :lol: but I was merely pointing out that both genders can take leave for a pregnancy and the bond issue would be identical. I'll also add that most bonds are pro-rated over time based on a calender and continuous employment. I believe when you are on mat leave you are still employed and in the case of Jazz still acruing seniority. So I think if an employer were to write an exclusion of pregnancy ie; if you become pregnant, while on mat leave the clock stops and begins when you return. I'm no lawyer but I'd bet that would be a human writes issue and discriminatory. You can't put a price on human life like that. Let's say Gladys gets said job, signs a bond, then finds out she's pregnant. Looks at the bond and says to herself, well if I continue this pregnancy I'll have to put in more time than I thought or pay to leave, then she decides(hypothetically) maybe abortion would be better because of her financial situation. I would think a human writes lawyer could make a case on undue duress and make the bond nul and void. Just an opinion
Pretty much agree.

It is maybe unfortunate from the employers standpoint, but I am also pretty sure that if she signs a, say 12 month bond, goes on maternity leave 2 months into the bond and comes back after a year, she does not still have 10 months left on the bond. An operator would probably disagree, but I am damn sure the labour board would side with the employee in this case.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Nearly all safety regulations are based upon lessons which have been paid for in blood by those who attempted what you are contemplating" Tony Kern
User avatar
EPR
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:38 am
Location: South of 60, finally!

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by EPR »

Only two weeks on job before filing for maternity.....definetly pilot error! :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Keep the dirty side down.
Just another canuck
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2083
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 6:21 am
Location: The Lake.

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by Just another canuck »

Doc wrote:First...I'm on nobody's side here.

She applied to Jazz before she got a job, or wrote a cheque to company A

She didn't know she was pregnant, and took early leave due to complications with said pregnancy.

Toss that in the mix.

I'm using a "she" mbav8r, because "hes" don't tend to get pregnant. Don't tell me you didn't know that?
In my humble opinion, I think the "right" thing for her to do is work another 10 months at the job with the bond. I think she could probably take the Jazz job and get out of paying her bond, but that is dirty pool. She is only causing problems for her gender by doing so. This company, in the future, would probably avoid hiring female pilots based on this scenario alone.

She should regretfully decline the Jazz position and re-apply in the future.... or accept that loss of 10 G's and become a Jazzer.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Twenty years from now you'll be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the things you did do.
So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover.
Rog
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:58 am
Location: YVR

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by Rog »

Yikes. Imagine trying to live in toronto on a jazz salary and being $10000 in the hole....with a baby.

Can we start a donation fund for Gladys so she doesn't end up stripping out of her jazz uniform at bachelor parties.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eleveniron
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:35 pm

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by Eleveniron »

We can blame the operators all we want for demanding a bond...but why does it happen? Because there are so many in this industry with no morals who will suck up 10K in training only to bail at the first opportunity. Don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with bonds...but we have created the situation ourselves. If you're willing to stay for a year or two (like the opperator expects and needs), negotiate a fair bond (either cash, loan, promisary note, firts born, whatever). If you know you're going to bail in 6 months, don't bother sucking them dry for training...you're no better than they are.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tvguru
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: YQK

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by tvguru »

If there really all these pilots screwing over companies, where the hell are they all going? Doesn't seem like anyones hiring. If they're lucky enough to pick up a job why would they leave after training? It would have to be a very shitty company in this climate to have to require a bond IMHO.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eleveniron
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:35 pm

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by Eleveniron »

tvguru wrote:If there really all these pilots screwing over companies, where the hell are they all going? Doesn't seem like anyones hiring. If they're lucky enough to pick up a job why would they leave after training? It would have to be a very shitty company in this climate to have to require a bond IMHO.
I'm not talking something that has taken place over the past few months...this is history...years!
---------- ADS -----------
 
tvguru
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: YQK

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by tvguru »

Eleveniron wrote: I'm not talking something that has taken place over the past few months...this is history...years!
I'll admit that I haven't been in the industry for all that long, but from my understanding we have many more years like the one we're having now compared to years like last year. Therefore, I have to surmise that the pilots are getting screwed more often then the companies.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by Doc »

One of the biggest myths in aviation is this..

THERE ARE BONDS BECAUSE SOME PILOTS SCREWED OVER SOME COMPANY!!!!

BULL SHIT

For every pilot who has left with a nice new PPC, I can name four companies that have fucked over pilots!! On a regular, and ongoing basis.

Ornge will make it five.

Back on topic. This woman became PREGNANT!

I'm trying to point out how one sided these bonds are. It's ALL about the company.

Eleveniron.....were you born yesterday? The companies ask you to pay huge amounts of money to BUY jobs, because pilots are stupid enough to pay them......is anybody home??
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eleveniron
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:35 pm

Re: BOND QUESTION

Post by Eleveniron »

Eleveniron.....were you born yesterday? The companies ask you to pay huge amounts of money to BUY jobs, because pilots are stupid enough to pay them......is anybody home??
Actually, no...I'm old enough to know when to remove the blinders and realize that the reason companies have bonds is not simply becasue they "can". They're protecting they're investment becasue, they too, have been screwed over and over. This isn't as one-sided as you pretend it to be.

Two things have to be done to eliminate the bond issue;

1) The pilots (I'm not saying everyone) who continue to play the system with other people's money need to stop doing this and stick to the comitment they are making when they accept employment. Pilot expects to be treated with respect and compensated accordingly, company expects pilot to perfrom the service they said they would...for a reasonable period of time.

2) THEN... pilots need to refuse paying cash bonds and negotiate FAIR, reciprocal terms with the company...basically, an employment contract. If pilot is as good as he says, chances are the company will negotiate. Hell...even Ornge has that provision in the agreement.


As far as I'm concerned, every job should be attached to an employment contract... This protects both the pilot and the company. Think about it. We, as employees are protected far better than the company. The Canada Labour Board is the employee's protection. If you've been screwed, go to them. If your complaint is legitimate you WILL be compensated. If you don't, then your complaint has no merit...that's how it works. The bond is the only mechanism the company currently has that truly protects their investment...and this has become more popular because of the increasing need for them to protect themselves for these very reasons.

Are there companies out there abusing the bond situation? absolutely...but you have to realize the root reason it all started. Build up confidence in the companies, and the GOOD ones will negotiate. The others are bonding you for the wrong reason but soon they will have no choice than to go down the same path as the others.

OK, have at it...I have thick skin.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Eleveniron on Wed May 06, 2009 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Employment Forum”