ALPA's Position on Training Bonds

[Mach 92]

Pay the guy that put up the bucks to teach your dumb ass something if you leave early, SIMPLE!!!

Type ratings can cost up to $55,000. What pilot has got that kind of cash to pay back? Let's say for sake of argument, it costs $10,000 for a type. Last time I checked, pilots incur huge debts acquiring all the training and licenses that they need so that they can legally sign a bond. On top of that, if the employer can get you to sign a bond so easily by dangling a carrot in front of you, they're probably going to pay less than they should for wages.

This is a cycle of abuse that should not be tolerated. If a bond is involved, the employer should be paying higher wages to the pilot, as his "risk" is now taken out of the equation. Sadly, again this is simply not the case. I don't understand what fear some pilots have if training bonds are legislated to be considered an unfair practice in the industry. Are you worried it will affect your career in a NEGATIVE way? Is that why you would rather perpetuate the continuous slide to the bottom, rather than try to improve your industry?

[teacher]

Wow
Some of you gut's really have your heads up your a____. One guy says " it should work both ways, the pilot should have employment protection" bla bla, who is the one paying the training cost DA!!!. Some point of views are so stupid they are funny. Some are right on the mark. Bottom line if you don't like bonds go and drive a bus until you find a job without one. Pay the guy that put up the bucks to teach your dumb ass something if you leave early, SIMPLE!!! Nobody owes anyone anything it's a fare trade work for me for x # of months and I will spend X # of $ teaching you something you don't know. If that doesn't sound fare to you simpletons drive a bus!!!

Dave, what other industry pretty much demands that employees subsidize the bottom line?

If an industry like aviation is having trouble turning a profit don't you think charging more for the services provided would make a little sense?

Bonds exist to enforce low wages and poor working conditions and prevent pilots from leaving when they get tired of being treated like shit or find somewhere better, plain and simple.

[Doc]

EDITED


Because I no longer give a crap. You have made your bed. Hope it's comfy.

[davesok]

Teacher:

This will be my last posting on this subject, it is a reply to your question.

The military, they will pay, example to put you through medical school. The bond is commit to 5 more years. There are not a lot of jobs that require a site unseen new employee, requirement of $50,000 to make them useful, therefore not many bonds.

They are NOT there to weaken the will of a pilot, hurt, bully, abuse ETC. They are there for one reason, protect themselves from the ass holes that allow $50,000 to be spent on them. These pilots agree to the terms of the bond and leave in the middle of the night thru the back door, like so many little jack asses on this site have done, than bitch about how unfare, unjust and illegal they have been treated by these freaking companies.

Again those complaining about bonds, be happy you have been the opportunity to fly some ones airplane. Honor the job, yourself or don't take it.

But most of all head your heads out of your ass.

[teacher]

Signed a bond, paid it out when I left and took the tax write off the next year. My head is fully out of my ass.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one though.

[tsgas]

Wow
Some of you gut's really have your heads up your a____. One guy says " it should work both ways, the pilot should have employment protection" bla bla, who is the one paying the training cost DA!!!. Some point of views are so stupid they are funny. Some are right on the mark. Bottom line if you don't like bonds go and drive a bus until you find a job without one. Pay the guy that put up the bucks to teach your dumb ass something if you leave early, SIMPLE!!! Nobody owes anyone anything it's a fare trade work for me for x # of months and I will spend X # of $ teaching you something you don't know. If that doesn't sound fare to you simpletons drive a bus!!!

Time to take your meds again before you attack the entire world. lol

[flyingcatfish]

Here's an idea: before you sign a bond, ask for a breakdown for the costs and see if they are reasonable. I know Simuflite in Dallas charges $1000/hour for a BE30 sim. So, 5 hours training, plus 1 hour ride = $6000US, plus air and hotel should all be south of $10,000 for a PPC. I think that some companies forget that the USD=CAN thesedays, and use the exchange rate from 10 years ago when the dollar was at 60 cents

[Double Wasp]

I do not have an issue with signing a promissary note saying that you are willing to stay for a defined period of time or you will owe the company a certain amount. This is a simple employment contract. As long as the amount is prorated over the period of the bond and is of a reasonable amount relative to the actual training dollars invested in the candidate.

Money up front is a completely different issue in my opinion as this then places the onus on the potential employee.

Promissary note bonds usually only bother the people who do not intend to honour them. For me this is a non issue because when the potential employer says to me we need you to stay for X amount of time when we hire you and by me accepting the position, I have given my word that I will stay for said amount of time and signing the agreement is just a formality.

I do not see how is this indentured servitude. You will be paid a salary which has been agreed upon prior to you accepting the position. You are not a slave during your time with the company and if the wage is not appropriate you should not have accepted the terms of employment in the first place.

If you have a company which is pushing you to do illegal things and holding a bond over your head you can still quit and not owe them a thing. Just make sure you have proof of the illegal activity. A contract is no longer legally binding when it forces you to conduct illegal activities.

Cheers
DW

[FlowPack]

I do not have an issue with signing a promissary note saying that you are willing to stay for a defined period of time or you will owe the company a certain amount. This is a simple employment contract. As long as the amount is prorated over the period of the bond and is of a reasonable amount relative to the actual training dollars invested in the candidate.

Money up front is a completely different issue in my opinion as this then places the onus on the potential employee.

This is exactly right. A bond in my opinion is NOT money up front. If you do that, you are financing the business - and if I were to do that, I would expect to be a shareholder and seeing my money make me money. A bond is simply, as stated above (prorated is important).

As someone wiser than I stated earlier - it would be fairly simple to effectively eliminate this problem for both parties - make the PPCs non-transferable between companies. A full initial PPC for every pilot every time he/she moves companies.


FP

[Mach 92]

Non-Transfer of PPC's wouldn't solve the problem, as pilots would still get typed at FSI, and then if they jump ship, would only be responsible for doing a PPC ride in the SIM. That would still represent a significant savings on a $50,000 (or less) type rating.

I still think that if the employer is going to spend money on the employees, then they have to do their homework on the candidates first, and check references for type-rating-jumping behaviours. The onus should be on the company, not the pilot. Making bonds against the labour code would ensure a company takes the time to do exactly that (something they don't do so much when bonds are involved).

Of course, the airlines would have to be more respectful of grabbing employees away from the farming companies that provide their pilots via expensive type ratings. After all, if ALPA is on side, then they would have to come up with a solution to their habit of "feast or famine" hiring practices.

[Doc]

Can't get over how narrow minded some of you are. This does NOT occur in any other industry, and yet some of you actually defend the practice.
As for ALPA. If they are unable to stand up for pilots (ie. get rid of the slavery that exists in this industry, for whatever reason) they have NO right milking dues from the pilots they "represent"!??
Again, for every pilot that trotted next door with a new PPC, I can name five companies who have fucked pilots over.

[KK7]

Just because you can't think of another industry where training bonds exist, that doesn't mean that no other industry uses them. Aviation certainly did not invent training bonds.

Training bonds are used all the time in the professional world all around the globe. Sometimes when employees take further training to advance within the company, the company may sponsor them to upgrade a diploma or get a Masters degree, but wish to retain the experience they are sending their employee to get. They don't always go under the name Training Bond, but trust me, they exist elsewhere. They weren't invented for aviation.

[Liquid Charlie]

As for ALPA. If they are unable to stand up for pilots (ie. get rid of the slavery that exists in this industry, for whatever reason) they have NO right milking dues from the pilots they "represent"!??

I tagged in on the end of this discussion but unfortunately although ALPA does not and will not support training bonds there isn't much they can do about it. If a company wants to make that a condition of initial employment there isn't much a union can do about it since the individual does not even belong to the union at that point.

All any union can do is keep training bond out of the contract language in any form -- that includes agreeing to probational pay - just another form of a training bond.

[jump154]

Just because you can't think of another industry where training bonds exist, that doesn't mean that no other industry uses them. Aviation certainly did not invent training bonds.

Training bonds are used all the time in the professional world all around the globe. Sometimes when employees take further training to advance within the company, the company may sponsor them to upgrade a diploma or get a Masters degree, but wish to retain the experience they are sending their employee to get. They don't always go under the name Training Bond, but trust me, they exist elsewhere. They weren't invented for aviation.

I don't work in the aviation field, and have signed several agreements to refund expenses paid on my behalf by my employer - pro-rated for a suitable period. These were for relocation and several further education courses. No problem to me, I'm going nowhere.

In fact, the education expenses are paid up front by me, and refunded on successful completion. Gives me the incentive to pass!

The only difference with Pilot training bonds I see is the $$$ are far bigger (well, not my relocation but the education for sure) - but then, don't leave and it goes away. Of course, all agreements had a "If the employee voluntarily leaves" clause.


$$ up front for PPC IMO is plain wrong, and is subsidizing the business.

[rallyjeff]

Training bonds are used all the time in the professional world all around the globe. Sometimes when employees take further training to advance within the company, the company may sponsor them to upgrade a diploma or get a Masters degree, but wish to retain the experience they are sending their employee to get. They don't always go under the name Training Bond, but trust me, they exist elsewhere. They weren't invented for aviation.

I work in engineering, not aviation, and it's fairly typical that when an employer pays for an advanced degree or whatnot, the employee has to sign an agreement saying that if the employee quits within a certain time period, he or she has to pay back the cost of the course, prorated based on the percentage of time left.

But there are several differences in what I see described here:

- the employee only has to pay it back in the case of voluntary end of employment. If the employee quits, he has to pay. If he's fired, laid off, retires, or the company just shuts its doors, he doesn't pay anything.

- there are never any loans taken out in the employee's name. The only thing linking the employee to any sort of debt or obligation is the agreement between the employer and the employee.

Actually, the arrangement described earlier in the thread (employee takes out a loan in his name for the cost of training, employer makes the payments) sounds like an exercise in cash flow management more than anything else. It would mean that the employer could spread the cost of the training out over a period of time instead of paying for it all up front.

... but I don't see why these issues should be the employee's problem.

[Doc]

Just because you can't think of another industry where training bonds exist, that doesn't mean that no other industry uses them. Aviation certainly did not invent training bonds.

Name one. And give us an example.

[Doc]

My absolute favourite was a certain company telling pilots that were laid off, that if they went to work elsewhere, they would lose their bond money. "We laid you off, but you are not allowed to find a way to pay the bills or feed your family....."!
And still, some of you defend the programme??????

[Shiny Side Up]

Just because you can't think of another industry where training bonds exist, that doesn't mean that no other industry uses them. Aviation certainly did not invent training bonds.

Name one. And give us an example.

Its actually very common in the construction industry, though you don't hear about it since the training costs are relatively small compared to the wages earned. In this case protective gear often became the property of the workers as well - since in some of the more hazardous tasks it would be custom made to the person. The key difference here is that since the wages were considerably higher than those for pilots, if you really wanted to leave you're looking at being out maybe a week's or a few days pay. For example my confined space entry training - a 3 day course, cost around $1200, but then I made about $2500 a week at the time.

[iflyforpie]

I got my confined space training provided by Kelowna Flightcraft while getting paid (plus a ton of other training). They didn't even ask me to sign a bond!

Training is the cost of doing business. It should be factored into what you charge the customer.


But as I say over and over and over again... the whoring of aviation starts right at the top!

[rallyjeff]

Its actually very common in the construction industry, though you don't hear about it since the training costs are relatively small compared to the wages earned. In this case protective gear often became the property of the workers as well - since in some of the more hazardous tasks it would be custom made to the person. The key difference here is that since the wages were considerably higher than those for pilots, if you really wanted to leave you're looking at being out maybe a week's or a few days pay. For example my confined space entry training - a 3 day course, cost around $1200, but then I made about $2500 a week at the time.

Wait - you had to pay a training bond for your confined space entry training? How long ago? Where did it happen?

Right now (and as long as I've been working) here in Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act says that health and safety training for most market sectors, including construction, is the responsibility of the employer. It's up to them to make sure you take the training and up to them to pay for it. This would include confined space entry training.

A person should never have to put up any sort of bond for that sort of training. The Ministry of Labour would probably have some choice words for any employer who tried to do that.

[Switchfoot]

Here's an idea: before you sign a bond, ask for a breakdown for the costs and see if they are reasonable. I know Simuflite in Dallas charges $1000/hour for a BE30 sim. So, 5 hours training, plus 1 hour ride = $6000US, plus air and hotel should all be south of $10,000 for a PPC.

Exactly. So why does a company who operates the BE30 make an employee sign a training bond for 21K? If the cost to train/sim/house/and feed an employee is only 8K or so, why are they forcing people to sign a document for over double that amount? Who's the one getting screwed here? Certainly not the employer!

Now I'm all for honoring my word and committment; if I leave before the alotted time is up, then I agree to pay back said training costs. The difficult problems arise when the pay is lousy, management has no respect of the CARs for duty time, and treats the pilots like trash. Worse yet if you've already committed and then once in the problems come to the surface.

I understand why bonds are in place yet I feel they are one of the worst aspects of our industry. It's unfortunate.

[teacher]

Yes in business it happens. University courses though are how much, $10,000, $20,000 tops? A quick search found that an MBA costs between $14,000 to $70,000 depending on the school and length of the course. I'd hazard a guess that most of those signing these "bonds" are making over $50,000 and anyone getting an MBA covered by their company is making well over $100,000. Do you think they're signing 2-3 year bonds? I'd also feel confident saying that these companies are trying to retain talent more than keeping the employee from leaving forcing them to accept shitty pay at their current job and not leaving to greener pastures.

[Shiny Side Up]

Its actually very common in the construction industry, though you don't hear about it since the training costs are relatively small compared to the wages earned. In this case protective gear often became the property of the workers as well - since in some of the more hazardous tasks it would be custom made to the person. The key difference here is that since the wages were considerably higher than those for pilots, if you really wanted to leave you're looking at being out maybe a week's or a few days pay. For example my confined space entry training - a 3 day course, cost around $1200, but then I made about $2500 a week at the time.

Wait - you had to pay a training bond for your confined space entry training? How long ago? Where did it happen?

Right now (and as long as I've been working) here in Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act says that health and safety training for most market sectors, including construction, is the responsibility of the employer. It's up to them to make sure you take the training and up to them to pay for it. This would include confined space entry training.

A person should never have to put up any sort of bond for that sort of training. The Ministry of Labour would probably have some choice words for any employer who tried to do that.

All I could say to that is welcome to union bustin' Alberta. This was about 15 - 20 years ago now? The company paid for the training, but made you sign a bond that you wouldn't leave them for in that case six months, often there was also a clause that they would also be garnishing your wages for the training costs should they have to fire you. This was the case for at least three different companies I worked for, one of them was Petro-Canada. But then again the Alberta government turns a pretty blind eye to such things. All that matters is that they keep getting that oil out of the ground.

Worker turnover was pretty high at the time, mostly due to the culture of it. Training bonds of this nature, weren't as much to make sure that workers wouldn't jump ship to another company (because often they did, the wage garnishing just didn't matter for some) but to make sure workers stayed on the job, the social problems that came with it, well beyond the "work hard, play hard" mentality were enormous. Big eye opener for me when I was younger.

That's not so say the idea of the bonds is right, but I could certainly see their point of view. The point was mainly to show that aviation isn't the only place I've encountered it. My early time in the workforce certainly has influenced my left leaning point of view.

[FlowPack]

Hey Doc - it would seem that you believe all employers are scum, they grind their boys and girls down physically and emotionally at every opportunity, taking advantage of the dark corner a bond has put them in and get off on it whilst whistling a tune all the way to the bank - that's how it reads to me.
If I were to read between the lines I would be led to think you have been employed by such companies in the past or had/have friends who have had that experience. My experience has been much different.

My question to you Doc - if an established company with a good reputation (read: no cowboys) offered you a job (that suited your lifestyle) on a good airplane that was well maintained, paid for all training up front and offered a wage above industry standard, would you consider it? Oops, I forgot to mention they would like you to sign a bond, prorated over two years - the only requirement from you is to be committed for said amount of time, nothing more.

That's the job I have.

Would you turn it down based solely on your no-bond principles?

[iflyforpie]

Hey Doc - it would seem that you believe all employers are scum, they grind their boys and girls down physically and emotionally at every opportunity, taking advantage of the dark corner a bond has put them in and get off on it whilst whistling a tune all the way to the bank - that's how it reads to me.
If I were to read between the lines I would be led to think you have been employed by such companies in the past or had/have friends who have had that experience. My experience has been much different.

My question to you Doc - if an established company with a good reputation (read: no cowboys) offered you a job (that suited your lifestyle) on a good airplane that was well maintained, paid for all training up front and offered a wage above industry standard, would you consider it? Oops, I forgot to mention they would like you to sign a bond, prorated over two years - the only requirement from you is to be committed for said amount of time, nothing more.

That's the job I have.

Would you turn it down based solely on your no-bond principles?

Would you jump ship if there wasn't a bond?

Good companies don't need bonds. I've been at my company five years now and I am still the new guy....