ALPA's Position on Training Bonds

[Mach 92]

It's their 'cost of doing business'. I especially like this one. How exactly do you design a business model when you cannot determine (reasonably) the cost of a major component of the operation. Do you run the numbers for training 2 pilots a year for one required position? Do you plan to train 4 pilots for the one required position? How about 8 pilots? Maybe 10? Are you saying this is a reasonable 'cost of doing business'? Some of you seem to think that this constitues a 'razor thin' profit margin. This can quickly destabilize any business. The employer needs to have some control over their costs, it's very simple.

This statement would be true were it not for the fact that it affects ALL companies. It is not an isolated event that is special to just one particular operation. You seem to think it is a lose-lose proposition, and that the company loses money in type ratings, but never gains it back. Don't forget, the company who gives type ratings also stands to benefit by receiving type ratings. When they receive one, I don't exactly see the company reducing the training bonds of the other pilots in order to "even it out." - a sort of type rating training pool if you will. No, sadly, the company pockets the difference and makes the next guy sign on the dotted line, all the while, telling everyone what a great entrepreneur they are.

I just don't agree with passing the buck to the weakest link in the chain.

[Mach 92]

DOC wrote: "It's indentured servitude. Removes "freedom of choice" from pilots."

It's totally a form of indentured servitude. That's why it needs to be legislated out. If you don't see this aspect of the practice, then why don't we just do away with all labour laws and let the companies do with their employees as they see fit to improve their business acumen? Afterall, what's more important?

[Mach 92]

And, as if bonds aren't enough:

http://www.gapan.org/press-pages/press- ... al-pilots/

[BE20 Driver]

We could argue all day about why companies do it. We could all agree that they offer a good place to work that people might stick around longer etc. The reality is that there are 8 sides to this argument. Companies have had problems in the past and the solution that they have implemented is a bond system. Some companies try to dress it up as a Training agreement or something similar. I personally think it's a lazy, piss-poor solution.

Bonds and employment contracts are different creatures though. Bonds only cover a company. Employment contracts are a two way street protecting both parties.

I have seen my old company bond an employee at 60% of their salary and then lay the guy off a few weeks or months later. I was railroaded into signing a bond there. They promised me the world in order to get me to sign. The ink wasn't even dry when their tune changed and things were all of a sudden "different now". What recourse did I have - none.

I am currently working under an employment contract. Both the company and I are protected. I don't think there was any provision for early termination of the contract written into this one. That said, if I walked half way through the contract period, the company could, in theory, come after me for lost revenue and or training costs in getting a replacement worker in place. On the flip side, my contract guarantees me employment and benefits for a specified period of time. If they lay me off, I could also in theory go after them for my salary and benefits for the rest of the contract period.

I'm still working my way up the ladder. If I have any choice on where I go next, I will, at all costs, avoid any company that has a bond. I am much more comfortable signing an employment contract that also covers my needs.

[davesok]

Wow
Some of you gut's really have your heads up your a____. One guy says " it should work both ways, the pilot should have employment protection" bla bla, who is the one paying the training cost DA!!!. Some point of views are so stupid they are funny. Some are right on the mark. Bottom line if you don't like bonds go and drive a bus until you find a job without one. Pay the guy that put up the bucks to teach your dumb ass something if you leave early, SIMPLE!!! Nobody owes anyone anything it's a fare trade work for me for x # of months and I will spend X # of $ teaching you something you don't know. If that doesn't sound fare to you simpletons drive a bus!!!

[Mach 92]

Pay the guy that put up the bucks to teach your dumb ass something if you leave early, SIMPLE!!!

Type ratings can cost up to $55,000. What pilot has got that kind of cash to pay back? Let's say for sake of argument, it costs $10,000 for a type. Last time I checked, pilots incur huge debts acquiring all the training and licenses that they need so that they can legally sign a bond. On top of that, if the employer can get you to sign a bond so easily by dangling a carrot in front of you, they're probably going to pay less than they should for wages.

This is a cycle of abuse that should not be tolerated. If a bond is involved, the employer should be paying higher wages to the pilot, as his "risk" is now taken out of the equation. Sadly, again this is simply not the case. I don't understand what fear some pilots have if training bonds are legislated to be considered an unfair practice in the industry. Are you worried it will affect your career in a NEGATIVE way? Is that why you would rather perpetuate the continuous slide to the bottom, rather than try to improve your industry?

[teacher]

Wow
Some of you gut's really have your heads up your a____. One guy says " it should work both ways, the pilot should have employment protection" bla bla, who is the one paying the training cost DA!!!. Some point of views are so stupid they are funny. Some are right on the mark. Bottom line if you don't like bonds go and drive a bus until you find a job without one. Pay the guy that put up the bucks to teach your dumb ass something if you leave early, SIMPLE!!! Nobody owes anyone anything it's a fare trade work for me for x # of months and I will spend X # of $ teaching you something you don't know. If that doesn't sound fare to you simpletons drive a bus!!!

Dave, what other industry pretty much demands that employees subsidize the bottom line?

If an industry like aviation is having trouble turning a profit don't you think charging more for the services provided would make a little sense?

Bonds exist to enforce low wages and poor working conditions and prevent pilots from leaving when they get tired of being treated like shit or find somewhere better, plain and simple.

[Doc]

EDITED


Because I no longer give a crap. You have made your bed. Hope it's comfy.

[davesok]

Teacher:

This will be my last posting on this subject, it is a reply to your question.

The military, they will pay, example to put you through medical school. The bond is commit to 5 more years. There are not a lot of jobs that require a site unseen new employee, requirement of $50,000 to make them useful, therefore not many bonds.

They are NOT there to weaken the will of a pilot, hurt, bully, abuse ETC. They are there for one reason, protect themselves from the ass holes that allow $50,000 to be spent on them. These pilots agree to the terms of the bond and leave in the middle of the night thru the back door, like so many little jack asses on this site have done, than bitch about how unfare, unjust and illegal they have been treated by these freaking companies.

Again those complaining about bonds, be happy you have been the opportunity to fly some ones airplane. Honor the job, yourself or don't take it.

But most of all head your heads out of your ass.

[teacher]

Signed a bond, paid it out when I left and took the tax write off the next year. My head is fully out of my ass.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one though.

[tsgas]

Wow
Some of you gut's really have your heads up your a____. One guy says " it should work both ways, the pilot should have employment protection" bla bla, who is the one paying the training cost DA!!!. Some point of views are so stupid they are funny. Some are right on the mark. Bottom line if you don't like bonds go and drive a bus until you find a job without one. Pay the guy that put up the bucks to teach your dumb ass something if you leave early, SIMPLE!!! Nobody owes anyone anything it's a fare trade work for me for x # of months and I will spend X # of $ teaching you something you don't know. If that doesn't sound fare to you simpletons drive a bus!!!

Time to take your meds again before you attack the entire world. lol

[flyingcatfish]

Here's an idea: before you sign a bond, ask for a breakdown for the costs and see if they are reasonable. I know Simuflite in Dallas charges $1000/hour for a BE30 sim. So, 5 hours training, plus 1 hour ride = $6000US, plus air and hotel should all be south of $10,000 for a PPC. I think that some companies forget that the USD=CAN thesedays, and use the exchange rate from 10 years ago when the dollar was at 60 cents

[Double Wasp]

I do not have an issue with signing a promissary note saying that you are willing to stay for a defined period of time or you will owe the company a certain amount. This is a simple employment contract. As long as the amount is prorated over the period of the bond and is of a reasonable amount relative to the actual training dollars invested in the candidate.

Money up front is a completely different issue in my opinion as this then places the onus on the potential employee.

Promissary note bonds usually only bother the people who do not intend to honour them. For me this is a non issue because when the potential employer says to me we need you to stay for X amount of time when we hire you and by me accepting the position, I have given my word that I will stay for said amount of time and signing the agreement is just a formality.

I do not see how is this indentured servitude. You will be paid a salary which has been agreed upon prior to you accepting the position. You are not a slave during your time with the company and if the wage is not appropriate you should not have accepted the terms of employment in the first place.

If you have a company which is pushing you to do illegal things and holding a bond over your head you can still quit and not owe them a thing. Just make sure you have proof of the illegal activity. A contract is no longer legally binding when it forces you to conduct illegal activities.

Cheers
DW

[FlowPack]

I do not have an issue with signing a promissary note saying that you are willing to stay for a defined period of time or you will owe the company a certain amount. This is a simple employment contract. As long as the amount is prorated over the period of the bond and is of a reasonable amount relative to the actual training dollars invested in the candidate.

Money up front is a completely different issue in my opinion as this then places the onus on the potential employee.

This is exactly right. A bond in my opinion is NOT money up front. If you do that, you are financing the business - and if I were to do that, I would expect to be a shareholder and seeing my money make me money. A bond is simply, as stated above (prorated is important).

As someone wiser than I stated earlier - it would be fairly simple to effectively eliminate this problem for both parties - make the PPCs non-transferable between companies. A full initial PPC for every pilot every time he/she moves companies.


FP

[Mach 92]

Non-Transfer of PPC's wouldn't solve the problem, as pilots would still get typed at FSI, and then if they jump ship, would only be responsible for doing a PPC ride in the SIM. That would still represent a significant savings on a $50,000 (or less) type rating.

I still think that if the employer is going to spend money on the employees, then they have to do their homework on the candidates first, and check references for type-rating-jumping behaviours. The onus should be on the company, not the pilot. Making bonds against the labour code would ensure a company takes the time to do exactly that (something they don't do so much when bonds are involved).

Of course, the airlines would have to be more respectful of grabbing employees away from the farming companies that provide their pilots via expensive type ratings. After all, if ALPA is on side, then they would have to come up with a solution to their habit of "feast or famine" hiring practices.

[Doc]

Can't get over how narrow minded some of you are. This does NOT occur in any other industry, and yet some of you actually defend the practice.
As for ALPA. If they are unable to stand up for pilots (ie. get rid of the slavery that exists in this industry, for whatever reason) they have NO right milking dues from the pilots they "represent"!??
Again, for every pilot that trotted next door with a new PPC, I can name five companies who have fucked pilots over.

[KK7]

Just because you can't think of another industry where training bonds exist, that doesn't mean that no other industry uses them. Aviation certainly did not invent training bonds.

Training bonds are used all the time in the professional world all around the globe. Sometimes when employees take further training to advance within the company, the company may sponsor them to upgrade a diploma or get a Masters degree, but wish to retain the experience they are sending their employee to get. They don't always go under the name Training Bond, but trust me, they exist elsewhere. They weren't invented for aviation.

[Liquid Charlie]

As for ALPA. If they are unable to stand up for pilots (ie. get rid of the slavery that exists in this industry, for whatever reason) they have NO right milking dues from the pilots they "represent"!??

I tagged in on the end of this discussion but unfortunately although ALPA does not and will not support training bonds there isn't much they can do about it. If a company wants to make that a condition of initial employment there isn't much a union can do about it since the individual does not even belong to the union at that point.

All any union can do is keep training bond out of the contract language in any form -- that includes agreeing to probational pay - just another form of a training bond.

[jump154]

Just because you can't think of another industry where training bonds exist, that doesn't mean that no other industry uses them. Aviation certainly did not invent training bonds.

Training bonds are used all the time in the professional world all around the globe. Sometimes when employees take further training to advance within the company, the company may sponsor them to upgrade a diploma or get a Masters degree, but wish to retain the experience they are sending their employee to get. They don't always go under the name Training Bond, but trust me, they exist elsewhere. They weren't invented for aviation.

I don't work in the aviation field, and have signed several agreements to refund expenses paid on my behalf by my employer - pro-rated for a suitable period. These were for relocation and several further education courses. No problem to me, I'm going nowhere.

In fact, the education expenses are paid up front by me, and refunded on successful completion. Gives me the incentive to pass!

The only difference with Pilot training bonds I see is the $$$ are far bigger (well, not my relocation but the education for sure) - but then, don't leave and it goes away. Of course, all agreements had a "If the employee voluntarily leaves" clause.


$$ up front for PPC IMO is plain wrong, and is subsidizing the business.

[rallyjeff]

Training bonds are used all the time in the professional world all around the globe. Sometimes when employees take further training to advance within the company, the company may sponsor them to upgrade a diploma or get a Masters degree, but wish to retain the experience they are sending their employee to get. They don't always go under the name Training Bond, but trust me, they exist elsewhere. They weren't invented for aviation.

I work in engineering, not aviation, and it's fairly typical that when an employer pays for an advanced degree or whatnot, the employee has to sign an agreement saying that if the employee quits within a certain time period, he or she has to pay back the cost of the course, prorated based on the percentage of time left.

But there are several differences in what I see described here:

- the employee only has to pay it back in the case of voluntary end of employment. If the employee quits, he has to pay. If he's fired, laid off, retires, or the company just shuts its doors, he doesn't pay anything.

- there are never any loans taken out in the employee's name. The only thing linking the employee to any sort of debt or obligation is the agreement between the employer and the employee.

Actually, the arrangement described earlier in the thread (employee takes out a loan in his name for the cost of training, employer makes the payments) sounds like an exercise in cash flow management more than anything else. It would mean that the employer could spread the cost of the training out over a period of time instead of paying for it all up front.

... but I don't see why these issues should be the employee's problem.