Can we please, once and for all, clarify the difference between a "bond" and money up front, the Unnamed Company Scam?
JC's bond is a promise to pay back a certain amount of money if the pilot leaves before the period of time he agreed to, expires. No cash up front, no pro-rated salaries, no BS. No pilot should be unable to first give his word and then live up to it, but if circumstances demand, the bond will be willingly paid.
This is reasonable and fair given the cost of, well, everything.
Money up front, pro-rated salaries and loss if interest (both meanings!) are crap, BS and should be illegal. Pilots that need this type of company get what they deserve - so does the company. These are the ones that make Doc (and me) get all red in the face.
One day, these companies will go to the wall and take a bunch of pilots with them who will cry and whine and say how unfair it all was, they didn't know how it worked and the government should do something about it - the aircraft will be sold and some deserving company will get them and operate them in a Happy Place. Won't that be nice?
Actually, a thought: let's say The Unnamed Company has an accident that damages a National Heritage Site but nobody is injured or killed. Say a Dash 8 falls on the new War Museum in Ottawa. High profile, right? "Lucky no one was hurt." I wonder how the accident report will deal with the CRM between the company and the Unhappy Pilot who HAD to fly that day even though he didn't want to but otherwise he would have lost all of his $15,000?
Maybe contempt was a bit harsh...
I would say that most of the assumptions you are making in general seem to be correlated with Voyageur's training bond it would seem. I'll tell you I've had three separate training bonds and currently a training agreement (my definition of no money up front) and none of them were anything similar to the conditions on that voyageur sample that was posted.