ALPA's Position on Training Bonds

[Doc]

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.

Name one. And give us an example.

[Doc]

My absolute favourite was a certain company telling pilots that were laid off, that if they went to work elsewhere, they would lose their bond money. "We laid you off, but you are not allowed to find a way to pay the bills or feed your family....."!
And still, some of you defend the programme??????

[Shiny Side Up]

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.

Name one. And give us an example.

Its actually very common in the construction industry, though you don't hear about it since the training costs are relatively small compared to the wages earned. In this case protective gear often became the property of the workers as well - since in some of the more hazardous tasks it would be custom made to the person. The key difference here is that since the wages were considerably higher than those for pilots, if you really wanted to leave you're looking at being out maybe a week's or a few days pay. For example my confined space entry training - a 3 day course, cost around $1200, but then I made about $2500 a week at the time.

[iflyforpie]

I got my confined space training provided by Kelowna Flightcraft while getting paid (plus a ton of other training). They didn't even ask me to sign a bond!

Training is the cost of doing business. It should be factored into what you charge the customer.


But as I say over and over and over again... the whoring of aviation starts right at the top!

[rallyjeff]

Its actually very common in the construction industry, though you don't hear about it since the training costs are relatively small compared to the wages earned. In this case protective gear often became the property of the workers as well - since in some of the more hazardous tasks it would be custom made to the person. The key difference here is that since the wages were considerably higher than those for pilots, if you really wanted to leave you're looking at being out maybe a week's or a few days pay. For example my confined space entry training - a 3 day course, cost around $1200, but then I made about $2500 a week at the time.

Wait - you had to pay a training bond for your confined space entry training? How long ago? Where did it happen?

Right now (and as long as I've been working) here in Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act says that health and safety training for most market sectors, including construction, is the responsibility of the employer. It's up to them to make sure you take the training and up to them to pay for it. This would include confined space entry training.

A person should never have to put up any sort of bond for that sort of training. The Ministry of Labour would probably have some choice words for any employer who tried to do that.

[Switchfoot]

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.

Exactly. So why does a company who operates the BE30 make an employee sign a training bond for 21K? If the cost to train/sim/house/and feed an employee is only 8K or so, why are they forcing people to sign a document for over double that amount? Who's the one getting screwed here? Certainly not the employer!

Now I'm all for honoring my word and committment; if I leave before the alotted time is up, then I agree to pay back said training costs. The difficult problems arise when the pay is lousy, management has no respect of the CARs for duty time, and treats the pilots like trash. Worse yet if you've already committed and then once in the problems come to the surface.

I understand why bonds are in place yet I feel they are one of the worst aspects of our industry. It's unfortunate.

[teacher]

Yes in business it happens. University courses though are how much, $10,000, $20,000 tops? A quick search found that an MBA costs between $14,000 to $70,000 depending on the school and length of the course. I'd hazard a guess that most of those signing these "bonds" are making over $50,000 and anyone getting an MBA covered by their company is making well over $100,000. Do you think they're signing 2-3 year bonds? I'd also feel confident saying that these companies are trying to retain talent more than keeping the employee from leaving forcing them to accept shitty pay at their current job and not leaving to greener pastures.

[Shiny Side Up]

Its actually very common in the construction industry, though you don't hear about it since the training costs are relatively small compared to the wages earned. In this case protective gear often became the property of the workers as well - since in some of the more hazardous tasks it would be custom made to the person. The key difference here is that since the wages were considerably higher than those for pilots, if you really wanted to leave you're looking at being out maybe a week's or a few days pay. For example my confined space entry training - a 3 day course, cost around $1200, but then I made about $2500 a week at the time.

Wait - you had to pay a training bond for your confined space entry training? How long ago? Where did it happen?

Right now (and as long as I've been working) here in Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act says that health and safety training for most market sectors, including construction, is the responsibility of the employer. It's up to them to make sure you take the training and up to them to pay for it. This would include confined space entry training.

A person should never have to put up any sort of bond for that sort of training. The Ministry of Labour would probably have some choice words for any employer who tried to do that.

All I could say to that is welcome to union bustin' Alberta. This was about 15 - 20 years ago now? The company paid for the training, but made you sign a bond that you wouldn't leave them for in that case six months, often there was also a clause that they would also be garnishing your wages for the training costs should they have to fire you. This was the case for at least three different companies I worked for, one of them was Petro-Canada. But then again the Alberta government turns a pretty blind eye to such things. All that matters is that they keep getting that oil out of the ground.

Worker turnover was pretty high at the time, mostly due to the culture of it. Training bonds of this nature, weren't as much to make sure that workers wouldn't jump ship to another company (because often they did, the wage garnishing just didn't matter for some) but to make sure workers stayed on the job, the social problems that came with it, well beyond the "work hard, play hard" mentality were enormous. Big eye opener for me when I was younger.

That's not so say the idea of the bonds is right, but I could certainly see their point of view. The point was mainly to show that aviation isn't the only place I've encountered it. My early time in the workforce certainly has influenced my left leaning point of view.

[FlowPack]

Hey Doc - it would seem that you believe all employers are scum, they grind their boys and girls down physically and emotionally at every opportunity, taking advantage of the dark corner a bond has put them in and get off on it whilst whistling a tune all the way to the bank - that's how it reads to me.
If I were to read between the lines I would be led to think you have been employed by such companies in the past or had/have friends who have had that experience. My experience has been much different.

My question to you Doc - if an established company with a good reputation (read: no cowboys) offered you a job (that suited your lifestyle) on a good airplane that was well maintained, paid for all training up front and offered a wage above industry standard, would you consider it? Oops, I forgot to mention they would like you to sign a bond, prorated over two years - the only requirement from you is to be committed for said amount of time, nothing more.

That's the job I have.

Would you turn it down based solely on your no-bond principles?

[iflyforpie]

Hey Doc - it would seem that you believe all employers are scum, they grind their boys and girls down physically and emotionally at every opportunity, taking advantage of the dark corner a bond has put them in and get off on it whilst whistling a tune all the way to the bank - that's how it reads to me.
If I were to read between the lines I would be led to think you have been employed by such companies in the past or had/have friends who have had that experience. My experience has been much different.

My question to you Doc - if an established company with a good reputation (read: no cowboys) offered you a job (that suited your lifestyle) on a good airplane that was well maintained, paid for all training up front and offered a wage above industry standard, would you consider it? Oops, I forgot to mention they would like you to sign a bond, prorated over two years - the only requirement from you is to be committed for said amount of time, nothing more.

That's the job I have.

Would you turn it down based solely on your no-bond principles?

Would you jump ship if there wasn't a bond?

Good companies don't need bonds. I've been at my company five years now and I am still the new guy....

[FlowPack]

IFFP - I wouldn't leave because integrity and my reputation are important to me on top of the job being good.

However, this same respectable company has been forced to move to bonds because pilots are pilots and they will always think of themselves first.

[KK7]

Just because a company is great, doesn't mean they can retain every employee that walks through their door. I work overseas on rotation, and have seen many people initially attracted to this kind of work, but then quickly realize it wasn't for them afterall. For those of us who enjoy the lifestyle, we love it and are happy with our jobs and our company. But sometimes when someone starts working here, they have a different idea of the work environment, maybe thinking developing countries are better than they really are, or that they don't like being away for such a length of time. There are many reasons to leave that don't include a company being good or bad. A bond makes people think twice about the job they are going to do for the one year period that they are held under that bond before they jump in blindly.

I'd say it's a very naive point of view to think that it is simply a company being good or bad that dictates whether a pilot will stay or not. To many people out there, the grass seems to be always greener elsewhere.

[Family Man]

No money up front but this is the same idea.

Unpaid interns: working for free
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in ... le2101863/

[Doc]

Hey Doc - it would seem that you believe all employers are scum, they grind their boys and girls down physically and emotionally at every opportunity, taking advantage of the dark corner a bond has put them in and get off on it whilst whistling a tune all the way to the bank - that's how it reads to me.
If I were to read between the lines I would be led to think you have been employed by such companies in the past or had/have friends who have had that experience. My experience has been much different.

My question to you Doc - if an established company with a good reputation (read: no cowboys) offered you a job (that suited your lifestyle) on a good airplane that was well maintained, paid for all training up front and offered a wage above industry standard, would you consider it? Oops, I forgot to mention they would like you to sign a bond, prorated over two years - the only requirement from you is to be committed for said amount of time, nothing more.

That's the job I have.

Would you turn it down based solely on your no-bond principles?

I'll keep it real simple. Hell, I'll even type slow so you can keep up.
NEVER have I stated that "all employees are scum....etc.etc....." you need to catch up on your ESL.
Simple answer. If there's a bond. Any bond, that means my word isn't good enough. I'd say "Go @#$! yourself" That simple enough to you???

[FlowPack]

NEVER have I stated that "all employees are scum....etc.etc....." you need to catch up on your ESL.

I assume you meant to say 'employers' in that statement since it's in quotations.. glad you were typing slow

Any bond, that means my word isn't good enough. I'd say "Go @#$! yourself" That simple enough to you???

Does that come with a side of chest thumping?
I've hired and fired enough people in my day. No, your word is not good enough for me, but thanks though. You live your life your way and I'll live mine my way; seems to be working out just fine either way.

[square]

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.

This is a pretty naive viewpoint. There are northern operators running very low load factors in and out of places where no one wants to be and they need aircrew more than anyone else. A pilot can easily accept a job there, become type rated at the company and then QUIT to take a job with a NEW employer out of YVR, YYC, YYZ or YUL even before his line indoc is done. EASILY.

People have done EXACTLY THAT and now the company is out 15k or 25k or whatever, and are a month behind their training now because they need somebody else, and have to cancel scheds and turn down work because the pilots they have are all dutied out. To say they have their employee sign a training bond so that they can bully him and take advantage of him is simply inflammatory and you won't get anywhere antagonizing people like that.

ALPA makes some good points, there are conditions in bonds that are unfair to pilots, amounts that exceed costs and people like JetsGo should be simply arrested, but there's a damn good reason they're there and it's because of pilots being unfair to employers who trusted them on their word.

One thing pilots should be doing, and to those of you with some hours I would especially hope you listen -- negotiate your own bond! Go over the document phrase by phrase with your employer and make it an agreement that's fair to you. That's what I've done and I've found that the people signing on the other line aren't even aware of some of the conditions that are in there, and they've insisted it be changed before we agree on anything. You have a say.. use it.