Ammunition for Canadas ATC trainees?

[NJ]

Hello and welcome to the posting side of things, Popeye. All our training as employees is paid for. The problem is that ATC trainees aren't employees until they graduate from the training course. Until then they are students at schools that not all banks or provincial governments recognize as accredited post-secondary institutions.

Once you're an employee everything is paid for. As a VFR controller, I can take the course at an ACC and retain my salary and return rights to my previous position.

[Braun]

Being short-staffed on paper is not the same thing as "having enough staff to handle the traffic"

They are two completely different things.

Correct, but if it's short and no trainees checkout it will just keep getting shorter and eventually maybe you won't have enough to handle the traffic.

[NJ]

Correct, but if it's short and no trainees checkout it will just keep getting shorter and eventually maybe you won't have enough to handle the traffic.

Yeah, and unpaid training is another roadblock to having the best applicants available.

[Braun]

That's what I said 2 posts up, .

[Alex YCV]

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. With the diminished pool of applicants, the already low checkout rate will plunge even more. After the baby boom controllers retire, staffing will be further reduced, and the existing guys will max out on OT every cycle. The critical shortage of IFR controllers will create flow control throughout entire FIR's. People will be too exhausted to properly train students. Then the already subpar trainees will have subpar training. Then the vicious cycle will continue. It sounds like doom and gloom, but it's a logical progression.

I am trying to be one of those exceptions, leaving long term self emplyment (more than 10 years) to move into ATC. But I can tell you that the process as it sits already isn't very encouraging for anyone who has already gone past school age.

If you are going IFR, you have to be in the position to live without any real income for about 18 months, and because of the lead time to the course, you have to be able to pretty much put your life on hold for upwards to 36 months (up to 18 months to get in after approval, and then the whole training period). Once you are in training, taking a part time job or work outside of your IFR work would be pretty much a short cut to failing and getting CTed pretty quickly.

If you are going VFR, things are at least better for you. Spend 6 - 10 months in Cornwall, with no income but at least your expenses are reasonable. Then you go out in the field and collect at least a starting salary until you check out.

Now, the testing processes aren't particularly tilted one way or another, but the referal process really is. The two references required are pretty much the types of references someone would have working at an entry level job or still being in university, perhaps involved in sports or some sort of club / group / situation. I would think that anyone who has made it up to, say, middle management in a company or perhaps is running their own business would have a hard time getting the types of references SHL is looking for.

It does in the end tilt things to one end, and certainly would discourage anyone with real life obligations from getting involved.

Does anyone have any stats regarding age versus abilty to checkout, example?

[NJ]

But you totally disagreed with me supported paid training 3 posts up

[NJ]

looking at what I said, it may be confusing. I meant that the adding a per diem onto the amount already paid is a small percentage increase in the big scheme of things. What's 510000 per trainee compared to 500000?

[Popeye]

Hi NJ, and thanks for your comment. I would like to point out this last paragraph, which specifically refers to the situation trainees find themselves in:

"If an employer requires existing employees to retrain, or enters into an agreement with prospective or probationary employees guaranteeing them regular jobs upon successful completion of a specified training program, the employer should pay both the training costs and the employee’s wages during the training period."

As for not being employees of NC yet, I was expecting this answer. However, I would like to say that it is not because NC likes to state that we aren't employees of theirs that we necessarily aren't.

Trainees are eligible to certain employee benefits (such as the employee assistance program) and are required to provide their Social Security Number right off the bat, which they wouldn't be allowed to do for non employees. Have you ever heard of a school requiring your SSN to enroll you?

Ultimately, this is avery fine point, which could be debated endlessly but probably only settled by a court. Which I believe, has never happened so far.

[Braun]

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!

[NJ]

The employment agreements we sign at the beginning and end of the course are very specific. Ultimately Nav Canada has the final say on whether they employ you or not. No guarantee is given. Up until holding the license, you're not out of the boat yet.

The total cost to train is very large. I just don't believe that every cost cutting measure must be made when it comes to intake of future employees. They talk about employee engagement and wanting to be the best 50 employers in Canada. People get a sour taste in their mouths from day one when training for the toughest job in the company is made even tougher. This is made even worse when the already existing training institute is made into a for-profit conference facility.

[invertedattitude]

As I've said before.

I worked 20-30 hours while I did my IFR training.

And I got a license.

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"

I'm very glad I proved everyone wrong.

[FamilyGuy]

Popeye - welcome aboard.

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.

My $39.99

[Popeye]

Thanks FamilyGuy,

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...

[Alex YCV]

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?

[Braun]

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!

[CD]

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...

[MCA]

Being short-staffed on paper is not the same thing as "having enough staff to handle the traffic"

They are two completely different things.

yeah ... publishing a notam advising companies to avoid a particular airspace, that's short staff.

[Braun]

By IFR training I meant the actually training not the OJT. I don't think i'm done, but anyways, sorry you misunderstood!

[Alex YCV]

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.

[jetblast]

Could you qualify for EI while doing the IFR training ???

[invertedattitude]

Not unless you lie to them.

[Alex YCV]

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...

employment null space.

[kevenv]

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.

[invertedattitude]

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

[Alex YCV]

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?