Career Advice from a Business Guy

[rookiepilot]

DELETED. GOOD LUCK.

[SPR]

1. You’re an independent contractor, not an employee, regardless of what you employer thinks. Adopt this mindset. You are contracting your valuable skilled labour for compensation. Keep your eyes open.

But if you leave in less than a year, even if the employer doesn't adhere to the Ts & Cs of your employment, then you're a piece of shit who deserves to be blacklisted? Know your worth, and walk away if your employer sucks, unless they're a poor small business owner who deserves compassion and respect, in which case merely considering quitting is akin to throwing a bag of puppies in a lake.

[rookiepilot]

1. You’re an independent contractor, not an employee, regardless of what you employer thinks. Adopt this mindset. You are contracting your valuable skilled labour for compensation. Keep your eyes open.

But if you leave in less than a year, even if the employer doesn't adhere to the Ts & Cs of your employment, then you're a piece of shit who deserves to be blacklisted?

.

[static_invertor]

What is this? "Chicken Soup for 200 hour pilots"?

[Onesie]

Career advice from a business guy who spends too much time on avcanada growing his ego

[rookiepilot]

What is this? "Chicken Soup for 200 hour pilots"?

.

[Squaretail]

3. Move. Don’t work there. Find a smaller company where you can stand out. Training captain? Special type ratings? Make yourself different. Take more responsibility— then get paid.

Always remember though that pay comes after responsibility. And usually isn't commiserate with. Responsibility goes up a lot, pay goes up a bit. Don't burn yourself out. Be prepared to move to chase a good job. Always confuses me that there are so many people who want to be pilots but not want to leave home or travel. Sort of part of the job description and appeal.

4. Leave canada. Work overseas. Be open to the unconventional. The less common path may be more rewarding, in monetary and many other ways.

Leaving Canada is a personal choice. The grass also isn't always greener on the other side of the fence, or border as it were. While I always encourage people to see what the rest of the world is like (which can make you realize how good you got it) Canada really is the best place for initial opportunities for new pilots. That's why the rest of the world is coming here to get experience. There's a lot of things to do as a pilot in this country, and you could never leave Canada as a working pilot and not experience it all. The be unconventional part more pilots should heed. There's a lot of things to do as a pilot - many of which pay better - than just airline pilot.

[static_invertor]

Unless you have work rights, leaving Canada is not an option for 90 plus percent of all Canadian pilots, unless you've got 1000s of hours on a heavy yet.

[digits_]

I said this in response to a post that said absolutely nothing about an employer failing to honour its written terms and conditions of employment, but referenced an employer who overlooked having the employee sign their contract of employment given to them, agreed upon by both sides.

It's not the written terms and conditions that aren't being honored, it's other stuff and verbal promises/expectations that are usually being misrepresented in companies that use bonds.

The post implied, that it is totally fine, morally and ethically, for an employee to jump ship immediately after an employer has invested a significant amount of money in training, and with an agreed upon contract in place — if any technical way to do so can be found.

Nobody said or implied jumping ship immediately is ok.

[rookiepilot]

Unless you have work rights, leaving Canada is not an option for 90 plus percent of all Canadian pilots, unless you've got 1000s of hours on a heavy yet.

.

[rookiepilot]

I said this in response to a post that said absolutely nothing about an employer failing to honour its written terms and conditions of employment, but referenced an employer who overlooked having the employee sign their contract of employment given to them, agreed upon by both sides.

It's not the written terms and conditions that aren't being honored, it's other stuff and verbal promises/expectations that are usually being misrepresented in companies that use bonds.

.

[digits_]

I said this in response to a post that said absolutely nothing about an employer failing to honour its written terms and conditions of employment, but referenced an employer who overlooked having the employee sign their contract of employment given to them, agreed upon by both sides.

It's not the written terms and conditions that aren't being honored, it's other stuff and verbal promises/expectations that are usually being misrepresented in companies that use bonds.

Then a hard lesson has been learned about contracts that applies to literally everything one will ever come across in life:

If its not in writing it doesn’t exist.

Ok. So why is it an issue then if the employee uses that same defense?

"I didn't sign the bond agreement so it doesn't exist" => Bad employee! Bad moral character!

[rookiepilot]

It's not the written terms and conditions that aren't being honored, it's other stuff and verbal promises/expectations that are usually being misrepresented in companies that use bonds.

Then a hard lesson has been learned about contracts that applies to literally everything one will ever come across in life:

If its not in writing it doesn’t exist.

Ok. So why is it an issue then if the employee uses that same defense?

"I didn't sign the bond agreement so it doesn't exist" => Bad employee! Bad moral character!

.

[digits_]

If the bond agreement was purely verbal in nature, that would be a valid comparison.

In the thread the information shared was the contract was written and agreed to by both parties, and sent to the employee, only a signature was missed. Its still a written contract that was received. Entirely different.

Why do you assume the employee agreed to the contract? Chances are the first time the employee would have been able to read the contract is when (s)he received it. If the employee doesn't like the terms of the bond, and the company trains them anyway, then really, it's on the company.

The order of events was very likely something like:

1) "Thank you for coming to the interview. [...] Would you be willing to sign a bond?"
- "sure"
2) Get sent the employment contract, sign and return
3) Get sent to training, pass PPC
4) Oh, wait, here's the bond, we forgot to send it to you before training!
5) Well I don't like these terms, it's the first time I've seen them and you already trained me, so I'm not signing this.

[rookiepilot]

If the bond agreement was purely verbal in nature, that would be a valid comparison.

In the thread the information shared was the contract was written and agreed to by both parties, and sent to the employee, only a signature was missed. Its still a written contract that was received. Entirely different.

Why do you assume the employee agreed to the contract? Chances are the first time the employee would have been able to read the contract is when (s)he received it. If the employee doesn't like the terms of the bond, and the company trains them anyway, then really, it's on the company.

The order of events was very likely something like:

1) "Thank you for coming to the interview. [...] Would you be willing to sign a bond?"
- "sure"
2) Get sent the employment contract, sign and return
3) Get sent to training, pass PPC
4) Oh, wait, here's the bond, we forgot to send it to you before training!
5) Well I don't like these terms, it's the first time I've seen them and you already trained me, so I'm not signing this.

.

[digits_]

If the bond agreement was purely verbal in nature, that would be a valid comparison.

In the thread the information shared was the contract was written and agreed to by both parties, and sent to the employee, only a signature was missed. Its still a written contract that was received. Entirely different.

Why do you assume the employee agreed to the contract? Chances are the first time the employee would have been able to read the contract is when (s)he received it. If the employee doesn't like the terms of the bond, and the company trains them anyway, then really, it's on the company.

The order of events was very likely something like:

1) "Thank you for coming to the interview. [...] Would you be willing to sign a bond?"
- "sure"
2) Get sent the employment contract, sign and return
3) Get sent to training, pass PPC
4) Oh, wait, here's the bond, we forgot to send it to you before training!
5) Well I don't like these terms, it's the first time I've seen them and you already trained me, so I'm not signing this.

Not buying that as very likely. That would be really stupid of an employer. And good luck proving it as the employee trying to claim same happened, that one got an employment contract, signed it, and never saw the details of the bond that is a part of that contract. Be laughed out of court, be my guess.

Besides, the thread said so, a written agreement was received, just not signed.

I was curious to see if my mind was playing tricks on me, so I did some digging through my email catacombs. The job offer I've seen did not mention anything about a bond. I was also not given a copy if the bond when I got the job offer.

So really, what's the alternative, quit your new job once you see the conditions of the bond? Theoretically possible but highly unlikely as a low time pilot.

Now, to be fair to the company, the bond itself was pretty fair. But still, you wouldn't sign it for fun. And definitely not after you've already gotten the training...