Training bond and fail PPC

[rookiepilot]

A training bond is a contract. In order for there to be an enforceable contract, there must be ‘consideration’ that flows to both parties. Consideration = benefit.

I would think that unsuccessful training would void any such agreement. And I suspect that has been tested in law and as a result the “you will still be bound if unsuccessful” language was added.

Can I get a full refund if i take PPL training from an FTU and can’t pass my ride, then?

That is a false equivocation.

We are taking about ‘contract law’. What you are referring to is a service provided. Just like getting an oil change.

Wrong. It's a contract, like any other, for any service provided. Not sure you understand what a contract is.

[Blueontop]

A company I worked for had a bond.

They forgot to ask one of the employees to sign it before training. They got the training, left within the timeframe of the bond and never had to pay.

Thats just stealing in my eyes.

And before the argument happens, as the “business owner”, commenting here…..its only “my” opinion that matters.

If one can’t be trusted to honour a simple contract, sure as heck can’t be trusted with million dollar equipment or peoples lives.

If I ran that company, I’d make sure to send that person's name to all my friends….running other aviation companies. I guarantee they probably all know each other.

How’s that?

It’s called blacklisting. And it happens.

What goes around, comes around. Its a small industry.

Coming from the “business owner” that would cut an employee to make a few bucks on the bottom line 6 months later. Short term profits and a favorable quarterly earnings report over blood and flesh human beings with families. Companies love “technicalities” to get out of agreements all the time too. Loyalty for thee but not for me.

Any sense of a quid pro quo employer/employee mutually beneficial relationship died in the 1980s. It’s everyman for himself now and has been for decades.

[Blueontop]

A company I worked for had a bond.

They forgot to ask one of the employees to sign it before training. They got the training, left within the timeframe of the bond and never had to pay.

Thats just stealing in my eyes.

And before the argument happens, as the “business owner”, commenting here…..its only “my” opinion that matters.

If one can’t be trusted to honour a simple contract, sure as heck can’t be trusted with million dollar equipment or peoples lives.

If I ran that company, I’d make sure to send that person's name to all my friends….running other aviation companies. I guarantee they probably all know each other.

How’s that?

It’s called blacklisting. And it happens.

What goes around, comes around. Its a small industry.

Coming from the “business owner” that would cut an employee to make a few bucks on the bottom line 6 months later. Short term profits and a favorable quarterly earnings report over blood and flesh human beings with families. Companies love “technicalities” to get out of agreements all the time too. Loyalty for thee but not for me.

Any sense of a quid pro quo employer/employee mutually beneficial relationship died in the 1980s. It’s everyman for himself now and has been for decades.

[rookiepilot]

Coming from the “business owner” that would cut an employee to make a few bucks on the bottom line 6 months later. Short term profits and a favorable quarterly earnings report over blood and flesh human beings with families. Companies love “technicalities” to get out of agreements all the time too. Loyalty for thee but not for me.

Here's a winning attitude to life, right here.....

[Blueontop]

Coming from the “business owner” that would cut an employee to make a few bucks on the bottom line 6 months later. Short term profits and a favorable quarterly earnings report over blood and flesh human beings with families. Companies love “technicalities” to get out of agreements all the time too. Loyalty for thee but not for me.

Here's a winning attitude to life, right here.....

Yup right there with your winning attitude in just about everything else in life. call em as I see em. Truth hurts. Didn’t actually refute anything I said too.

[rookiepilot]

call em as I see em.

That can be a really, really expensive attitude, too. But knock yourself out.

You'll go far.......

[Blueontop]

call em as I see em.

That can be a really, really expensive attitude, too. But knock yourself out.

You'll go far.......

Your not in any position to say how far I have gone or how far I will go on anything, so unless you have something constructive to add/retort my thesis I’m going to call it a day.

[twa22]

Can I get a full refund if i take PPL training from an FTU and can’t pass my ride, then?

That is a false equivocation.

We are taking about ‘contract law’. What you are referring to is a service provided. Just like getting an oil change.

Wrong. It's a contract, like any other, for any service provided. Not sure you understand what a contract is.

Rookie, you need to take a step back and chill out, from your posts over the years, you don't have much skin in the aviation game, while rudder has been around a long, long time and has provided some extremely useful information on this site, while you haven't. I would take rudder's word when it comes to bonds over yours any day, so stop acting like you know everything

[photofly]

We are taking about ‘contract law’. What you are referring to is a service provided. Just like getting an oil change.

All are contracts. You can have a refund on your PPL training if the contract says you can have a refund on your PPL training.

A training bond, PPL training, and getting an oil change - all are matters of contract and governed by contract law. So is it also every time you buy something in a store.

Most PPL training isn't conducted under a written contract. So the court will look to see what the agreement of the parties was when they entered into the contract. They'd have to decide if each lesson represented a separate contract, and whether assurances were given. In the absence of some confirmation to that extent (oral, if the court believes the testimony, but preferrably in writing) it's unlikely you could get a refund if you failed the ride.

[Aviatard]

That is a false equivocation.

We are taking about ‘contract law’. What you are referring to is a service provided. Just like getting an oil change.

Wrong. It's a contract, like any other, for any service provided. Not sure you understand what a contract is.

Rookie, you need to take a step back and chill out, from your posts over the years, you don't have much skin in the aviation game, while rudder has been around a long, long time and has provided some extremely useful information on this site, while you haven't. I would take rudder's word when it comes to bonds over yours any day, so stop acting like you know everything

It’s not necessary to know anything as long as you do it loud enough and with sufficient outrage.

[digits_]

We are taking about ‘contract law’. What you are referring to is a service provided. Just like getting an oil change.

All are contracts. You can have a refund on your PPL training if the contract says you can have a refund on your PPL training.

A training bond, PPL training, and getting an oil change - all are matters of contract and governed by contract law. So is it also every time you buy something in a store.

Most PPL training isn't conducted under a written contract. So the court will look to see what the agreement of the parties was when they entered into the contract. They'd have to decide if each lesson represented a separate contract, and whether assurances were given. In the absence of some confirmation to that extent (oral, if the court believes the testimony, but preferrably in writing) it's unlikely you could get a refund if you failed the ride.

Isn't the big difference here that an employer can only charge an employee for training if it benefits the employee to work outside of the current employer.

Employer specific training => employer can not ask employee to pay back the training, even if there is a written agreement
More general training which make it easier for the employee to find work elsewhere => employer may ask the employee to pay back the training, written agreement required (or recommended, dependong on the source)

Since a failed training does not benefit an employee, could we not conclude that an employer would not be able to get money back from the employee in this case?

Assuming there is no negligence or intent, then an employer could not get money back from an employee for breaking plates while doing dishes, for burning more fuel than necessary due to an aggressive driving style, for hitting a pothole with a company car etc.

If all those things happen frequently enough, they could rightfully fire the employee, but even then, they would likely not be succesful to get damages, or to ask for the salary back just because the employee is incompetent. As an employee if you're incompetent, you can lose your job, but you (generally) don't have to pay for it.

It doesn't sound too farfetched that being incompetent and failing a PPC ride would come with that same protection.

Thoughts?

[photofly]

The employer and employee can agree to whatever contract terms they like. If your contract says you
must pass a check ride or else pay for the training, I don’t see why that would be unenforceable.

I don’t see why an employer can’t force an employee to pay for broken plates, either. Either as a matter of contract, or in a claim for the tort of negligence.

But then I’m not an employment lawyer.

[digits_]

The employer and employee can agree to whatever contract terms they like.

Pretty sure that's not true. You yourself mentioned earlier that courts can modify agreements.

One example would be paying for a uniform in Manitoba.
No employer can ask an employee to pay for it, doesn't matter if it's part of the employment contract.

(Link: https://www.gov.mb.ca/labour/standards/ ... 0employers. )

[photofly]

The courts modify written agreements to match the actual intentions of the parties, where it is different to what is in writing. That’s not a good example of what you’re asking.

Sure, there are some statutory provisions about what can and can’t be in an employment contract, but they are jurisdiction dependent. Outside of those, the parties can agree whatever terms they want. I don’t think there’s a statutory exception for broken plates, and there definitely isn’t one for training costs.

[rookiepilot]

That is a false equivocation.

We are taking about ‘contract law’. What you are referring to is a service provided. Just like getting an oil change.

Wrong. It's a contract, like any other, for any service provided. Not sure you understand what a contract is.

Rookie, you need to take a step back and chill out, from your posts over the years, you don't have much skin in the aviation game, while rudder has been around a long, long time and has provided some extremely useful information on this site, while you haven't. I would take rudder's word when it comes to bonds over yours any day, so stop acting like you know everything

I (think) I understand contract law.

As others have said, it's not a buffet. You don't get to pick and choose what aspects of an agreement you like.

I don't happen to think the implied advice given to young pilots on this topic is sound.

[twa22]

Wrong. It's a contract, like any other, for any service provided. Not sure you understand what a contract is.

Rookie, you need to take a step back and chill out, from your posts over the years, you don't have much skin in the aviation game, while rudder has been around a long, long time and has provided some extremely useful information on this site, while you haven't. I would take rudder's word when it comes to bonds over yours any day, so stop acting like you know everything

I (think) I understand contract law.

As others have said, it's not a buffet. You don't get to pick and choose what aspects of an agreement you like.

I don't happen to think the implied advice given to young pilots on this topic is sound.

Yes, you do get to chose which aspects of an agreement you like or don't. If you don't like them, you don't sign an agreement, and generally don't take a job with terms you don't like. When you're offered a salary and schedule, if you don't like the salary, or schedule, you either decline the job or, you negotiate better terms

The same is the case of the OP, the advice was either don't sign, or ask for a modification of terms.

Very simple stuff mate

[twa22]

Wrong. It's a contract, like any other, for any service provided. Not sure you understand what a contract is.

Rookie, you need to take a step back and chill out, from your posts over the years, you don't have much skin in the aviation game, while rudder has been around a long, long time and has provided some extremely useful information on this site, while you haven't. I would take rudder's word when it comes to bonds over yours any day, so stop acting like you know everything

It’s not necessary to know anything as long as you do it loud enough and with sufficient outrage.

Yea, seems like that happens quite a lot these days...

[photofly]

I don’t see why an employer can’t force an employee to pay for broken plates, either. Either as a matter of contract, or in a claim for the tort of negligence.

Here's something about when an employer can pursue an employee for negligence. Apparently, generally not - except in exceptional circumstances:
https://kmlaw.ca/reminderyou-cant-sue-e ... egligence/

[Bug_Stomper_01]

Here's a thought, how about say you're not comfortable signing a "training agreement". Slide it back across and say, I'm happy to do the job for you and provide you with significant return on investment.

That is good advice, a bond will be leveraged on you for the term it’s signed for regardless of the employer. In my experience most jobs requiring a bond are crappy enough that it’s needed to retain personnel.
I flat out refused a job once because of a training bond. They got pissy about it and said fine, I walked. They called the next week, same offer, no bond. It was a craptacular job and I’m thankful I didn’t sign it, I lasted less than half of the term the bond was slated for.
Never sign a bond unless you’re absolutely clear on what it means for you (have an employment lawyer review it with you and all the inherent risk). Shiny new endorsements aren’t so shiny when you see what you have to deal with to earn it.

[Bug_Stomper_01]

A company I worked for had a bond.

They forgot to ask one of the employees to sign it before training. They got the training, left within the timeframe of the bond and never had to pay.

Thats just stealing in my eyes.

And before the argument happens, as the “business owner”, commenting here…..its only “my” opinion that matters.

If one can’t be trusted to honour a simple contract, sure as heck can’t be trusted with million dollar equipment or peoples lives.

If I ran that company, I’d make sure to send that person's name to all my friends….running other aviation companies. I guarantee they probably all know each other.

How’s that?

It’s called blacklisting. And it happens.

What goes around, comes around. Its a small industry.

No that’s not correct. If the company is careless enough to put the candidate through training without having a signed contract that’s on them. Realistically it can’t be signed after the fact the way these are usually worded anyways due to common law and changes everything for the arrangement. I’d revisit the contract with an employment lawyer at the very least in this instance but, would probably be advised not to sign it.

[rookiepilot]

A company I worked for had a bond.

They forgot to ask one of the employees to sign it before training. They got the training, left within the timeframe of the bond and never had to pay.

Thats just stealing in my eyes.

And before the argument happens, as the “business owner”, commenting here…..its only “my” opinion that matters.

If one can’t be trusted to honour a simple contract, sure as heck can’t be trusted with million dollar equipment or peoples lives.

If I ran that company, I’d make sure to send that person's name to all my friends….running other aviation companies. I guarantee they probably all know each other.

How’s that?

It’s called blacklisting. And it happens.

What goes around, comes around. Its a small industry.

No that’s not correct. If the company is careless enough to put the candidate through training without having a signed contract that’s on them. Realistically it can’t be signed after the fact the way these are usually worded anyways due to common law and changes everything for the arrangement. I’d revisit the contract with an employment lawyer at the very least in this instance but, would probably be advised not to sign it.

My words were a bit too harsh. I'm highly sympathetic to working conditions and pay for entry level folks. I just think it's important to honor one's word. Balanced with that, is assertively negotiating conditions, and checking out a prospective employer carefully however one can.

It's really tough for young people now and I have considerable compassion for them. Not easy at all.

[photofly]

It's really tough for young people now and I have considerable compassion for them. Not easy at all.

Who are you, and what did you do with rookiepilot?

[rookiepilot]

It's really tough for young people now and I have considerable compassion for them. Not easy at all.

Who are you, and what did you do with rookiepilot?

I’ve been too harsh.

I apologize.

[digits_]

It's really tough for young people now and I have considerable compassion for them. Not easy at all.

Who are you, and what did you do with rookiepilot?

I’ve been too harsh.

I apologize.

[Duukar]

There is no other option than to run. It’s predatory.