The others on my course who did not work did not get a license.
Coincidence? Who knows, I found working took my mind off the stress of training, heck even once I was in OJT I still worked on my days off, nothing like taking your ATC training stress out on someones vacation luggage
The MIT told me "You will not be successful if you work part-time while training"
My response was "If I don't work part-time, I can't continue to stay here"
Your legislative reveiw is nice save one key word - should. NC "should" do all kinds of things. Until it says shall and someone points that out to them - usually with a lawyer/staff rep swinging a 2X4 - forget about it. Good research though - at least you inform yourself.
Nice discussion - some good points.
I like this one: They're throwing away potentially excellent controllers to save a few bucks as controllers we should be gravely concerned about it, and should as a group fight for it. The problem being, those of us who are already through, it's hard to get motivated for something no longer personally affects you.
The last line is interesting. Tell me again why chronic short staffing doesn't personally affect every single controller in those units???
Truth is it does - big time. Most folks just either don't make the connection or have been beaten into total apathy - brick walls don't care.
I totally agree with you. That's why I'm not very optimistic that there will be any change to NC's policy until it says shall rather than should.
However that is not prerogative of a Parliament appointed Commissioner, it's the prerogative of Parliament itself. The role of this Commissioner, as it's government appointed mandate dictates, is to tell our elected-officials what changes to be made in order for NC (in this case) to do so.
Also, a phrase of this section is in my opinion is the equivalent in lawyer speak to swinging a 2x4. The Commissioner says just before stating his recommandation that "Failure to pay for required training is, arguably, a violation of the statute as it presently stands." Coming from a guy with his credentials in labour law, it hits pretty strongly.
"Arguably", in this context means (IMO) that it's what he thinks, but it needs to be put to test.
All we can hope for is probably:
1) A legislative change that would clarify the matter;
2) That understanding this, and in order to preserve their image, NC would voluntarily change their policy.
But as I said, and considering our present conservative government, I wouldn't bet my rent money (which I will need to get through training) on either of these...
Braun wrote:Sorry I just reread your post and totally misunderstood, I agree with you, my bad, MANOPS gets to your head after a while! By the way ALEX YCV I can't agree with your comment about working part time during training. I'm doing it and it's working out fine, it sucks because it doesn't leave a lot of time for stuff but it's really not that bad!
Braun, my question would be this: If you were living alone, would you have been able to afford to live properly off the time you could work? Are you cutting corners on things like sleep to stay ahead of the game? I have friends who did 5 courses per semester at university and worked part time, but the end result wasn't as good as it could be.
Are you bringing stuff home from training that requires long study periods?
I was reading a blog about a guy doing VFR in Cornwall, and he was pretty much saying there was enough work to do that all time during the day 5 days a week was filled, and most were using at least one day on the weekend to keep up. Is the workload in learning IFR that much lower?
Well I just finished my IFR training and will be heading on the floor shortly. Yes I did have to bring a lot of stuff home to study as anyone who has done the IFR course knows there is. I went to the courses the weekdays, studied weeknights and worked weekends. I never failed a test. It is definately not an ideal situation and to be straightforward it sucks balls. Please don't think I am for not paying trainees, i'm the complete opposite!
Alex YCV wrote:I was reading a blog about a guy doing VFR in Cornwall, and he was pretty much saying there was enough work to do that all time during the day 5 days a week was filled, and most were using at least one day on the weekend to keep up. Is the workload in learning IFR that much lower?
Trainees were paid when ATS was still part of Transport Canada and all of the ab initio training was conducted at TCTI (no living expenses, although room & board was subtracted from the 'training pay'). The trainees were classified as 'non-employees' and didn't receive any particular benefits, similar to the situation now. They didn't become employees until the commencement of unit training and, even then, without a successful checkout there was no guarantee of a job at the end. The schedule that you describe was pretty much what was required for the normal trainee to have a shot at finishing the course at TCTI. However, the checkout rate in the units was still abysmal and it doesn't sound like that has changed significantly since NavCanada / SHL took over.
Without a doubt, receiving that pay while in training, as little as it was, did enable a number of 'mature' trainees with families to participate in the course and to focus their energy toward study. It didn't improve the check-out rate but it was one less thing to worry about while training...
NJ wrote:Looking down the road, people with actual work and life experience will no longer be able to apply for the IFR jobs because the risk is simply too great. So the people that will apply and attend the schools are local kids who still live at their parent's.
You mean just like the traditional IFR applicants of the past? Most long-time IFR controllers have been doing it since high school, and haven't done anything else. Nothing new there.
Maybe that's why the requirement to have a university degree, which was the case for a short while approx 5 years ago, was dropped. The company realized that might be asking too much. Makes sense, since a university degree has absolutely no bearing on one's ability to do the job, and had never been a requirement in the past.
University degree is also no indication of ability to do this particular job, but does a very good job of limiting the pool of potential candidates. Most people who have spent 3 or 4 years in university (or longer!) basically not making much money are not going to be looking forward to signing up for another 12-24 months of nothing. This is doubly true if they have a degree that can get them a decent job with a 30k-50k starting salary.
I think that the combination of no pay for 12 months, an up to 18 month wait period to start training, the potential to be CTed at any time in that process, plus that $200 testing fee is all the filter Navcan needs to keep the applicant pool down to a reasonable number.
invertedattitude wrote:Not unless you lie to them.
Which brings up the interesting point. If you are unable to collect unemployment because you are working, but unable to collect a paycheck because you haven't been hired or made a staff member yet...
Alex YCV wrote:
Which brings up the interesting point. If you are unable to collect unemployment because you are working, but unable to collect a paycheck because you haven't been hired or made a staff member yet...
employment null space.
I don't think you are unable to collect EI because you are "working". If you leave another job to take ATC training you can't collect because you have willing left your previous employment. If you weren't previously employed it's a moot point. Also, not all training programs/courses are eligible for or covered by EI.
Alex YCV wrote:
Which brings up the interesting point. If you are unable to collect unemployment because you are working, but unable to collect a paycheck because you haven't been hired or made a staff member yet...
employment null space.
I don't think you are unable to collect EI because you are "working". If you leave another job to take ATC training you can't collect because you have willing left your previous employment. If you weren't previously employed it's a moot point. Also, not all training programs/courses are eligible for or covered by EI.
Exactly the reason, because we willingly left employment.
Now if you work for a small company, and know the employers well enough, you might be able to get laid off. Although most wouldn't be able to do this.
I made more money working part-time than I ever could have on EI
Invert the question. What if you company puts you on layoff (eligible for EI) and then you start at Navcanada doing the "free training" for IFR? Does starting the training consitute work as far as the EI people are concerned?
Does someone who is validly on EI lose their benefits on the first day of orientation?
Alex YCV wrote:Invert the question. What if you company puts you on layoff (eligible for EI) and then you start at Navcanada doing the "free training" for IFR? Does starting the training consitute work as far as the EI people are concerned?
Does someone who is validly on EI lose their benefits on the first day of orientation?
I can't imaging the ATC course being considered employment as you are only a student. The crux of the issue is the course itself doesn't qualify for EI coverage or payment as a lot of courses do. Therefore if you are a full time student unavailable to work you lose the benefits. That doesn't strike me as the company's fault, rather it's EI's issue. Whatever the answer to your question above, I hope that people who fall into this category would actually research the answer to that before making the switch.
Alex, legally no you cannot draw EI while in training as an IFR student, so I can't really advise you otherwise on an open public forum.
Being someone who worked the oil patch for a winter, then on EI for the summer a few years back, I know there are ins and outs of using the EI system.
I even recieved a few thousand from them for flight training, and had to really work at it. Basically getting money from the government to further your education is the equivilant to signing your life away, and having to pull teeth just to get them to consider you.
Like most federal government programs, it's a joke.
On NavCans part, no it's not their fault about the EI issue, but they failed to properly setup student loan funding prior to de-centralizing training, and now they'll likely never get it back.
I wouldn't be in that position (I am self employed now, and would likely continue to be through the process) but I could see where someone could end up in a hole with this one.
The training is "work enough" to make EI stop paying you, but it isn't "work enough" for NavCanada to feel the need to pay even whatever the mandated minimum wage for that time period would be.
Again, it gets back to the question of limiting the candidate pool. Someone who is the breadwinner in their family would be much less likely to want to start the process, knowing that they will spend the next year with no discernible income. I have a feeling that this would tip the candidate pool mostly towards recent high school grads, possibly university grads, but certainly much fewer people who have real world full time work experience.
Does anyone know if trainees are eligible to collect parental benefits? I have an 8 week old son at home and am about to take parental leave for he next 9 months. If I start training will I be cut off of parental benefits?
I'm hoping that's not the case but I have a sizeable RRSP to draw from using the Lifelong Learning Plan if I have no other options. I assume that NavCanada training is eligible for this program. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't know about the other provinces but here in Quebec, no one, except one bank, considers the training to be education hence it is impossible to get a student loan. Ok I understand EI but you can't even get a freaking student loan!
