AND THIS IS WHY WE HAVE BONDS!!!

[timel]

I understand better, many pilots who sign certains bounds are signing for whatever the boss desires and yes it is not right from this very point of view.

It is true that most are just signing for a training agreement (bound) but it does not come with a work agreement. Even if you sign a work agreement, it probably does not say much about work conditions.

I am starting to believe that all pilots have to bring unions into their work places, it is the only way they can get decent work conditions and know what to expect.

[DonutHole]

See you make a distinction where the law on the matter does not.

Training bonds aren't even bonds ununder the technical terms. Almost all other bonds have some sort of third party fiduciary... so what exactly is a training bond?

Well, case law (Google training bond enforcement) shows that the type of 'bonds' aviation types sign are in fact simply contracts.

This is where the flawed understanding of how the bonds are adjudicated, held by those such as 'there is,' becomes harmful. The law doesn't make the kinds of distinctions doc and timel make, the law sees the bond as a contract. By buying into the flawed characterization of this contract as a bond (and a flawed understanding of what a bond is in general) you've replaced your leverage with wilful ignorance.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Still waiting for two verifiable examples of two way bonds in this industry. Not seeing any. When Wasaya and Bearskin ask for 10K up front.....guess what. Sign it "as is", leave your cheque on the table, or leave. It's that simple. And that one sided.
You can find two, surely.
Illya

[DonutHole]

OK, so instead of insulting and threatening to embarrass people, let's have a dialogue on this subject.

The reason pilots (I'm assuming at least some other people too, like Never Blue says, engineers sometimes have to sign these things too,) feel like they have to go along with stuff like this is that they feel there is enough competition for the job on offer that they will lose the opportunity altogether if they balk at any part of the process. Employers seem to feel that if you're not willing to do something, there will be another person who IS willing to do it. I'm inclined to agree, judging from what I've observed over the years. The only time I can think of where a person might get away with some stubbornness would be if the company has ASKED you to transition to a certain type. Usually though, you've asked for the upgrade or transfer or whatever.

If that's the truth then why do training bonds matter? You're already an indentured servant.

So what is your specific recommendation? It's true that if enough people were willing to fall on their swords you'd see an improvement... but when I think of the objectionable practices that have started to fall by the wayside in recent times, it's never been the workers who have managed to put a stop to it. I'm thinking specifically about pressure to fly in unacceptable weather and over-loading. You don't see as much of that nowadays as you used to... but I don't think it was ever pilots who initiated that change in thinking. Maybe they like to think it was.

The first step is education. Right now the people floating these bond offers are sitting pretty as pilots generally seem to believe the terms are non negotiable. Maybe it doesn't take a bunch of people to fall on their sword. The key is, if your considerations aren't extreme then why should they have a problem writing it down.

Let's understand, that the idea of a training bond isn't to create indentured servants, it is to ensure a company doesn't end up taking massive losses in perpetual restraining costs. For sure it is realistic to believe that some operators manipulate the intent to their benefit, but that's only because pilots think they have no leverage.

So who is going to initiate this one? You can't ask working people to stand on principle to their own immediate detriment. There will always be more exigent concerns for those people. You know that. It's not fair to expect people to tinker with their ability to make a living in order to satisfy some high-minded ideal that might benefit someone else, far down the road. You can get a soldier to do that, if you carefully fill his/her head with ideas about honour and glory and sacrifice and unity and esprit du corps. Pilots don't get any of that stuff, because no-one is feeding and sheltering them and no-one is cheering for them. (please don't think I have anything but the greatest respect for the military)

Well solidarity is great, but I think your premise is built around worst case scenario. The idea is, that you don't try to negotiate for what other will get in the future, you bargain for what you need to affirm your perception that the job is worth the commitment right now. If you are in a shitty position because you failed to utilize your leverage, that isn't an industry problem, that's personal responsibility. The more people that accept those deals will obviously erode the power held by the employees but if you're in a situation where you've signed a crappy bond because you had no way out... I'm sorry, that's poor decision making and that's on the pilot as an individual.

So where do you propose we start here if we want to stamp this practice out? What is your plan? If people in other fields of endeavour are able to manipulate this situation in their own favour, and pilots aren't simply because they are dumb, maybe you could help some of these dummies understand what their rights and responsibilities are when they are faced with one of these "training agreements" or whatever. How can we build consideration into these agreements, or avoid them?

For sure there is a degree of balls required. But I've heard a lot of bitching about the bait and switch.

The first thing that must happen is we absolutely must rid our profession of the notion that bonds are non negotiable. Second, when you're in your meeting addressing the bond, straight up ask for consideration. If they say no... then you have some good information to base your decision on.

[DonutHole]

Still waiting for two verifiable examples of two way bonds in this industry. Not seeing any. When Wasaya and Bearskin ask for 10K up front.....guess what. Sign it "as is", leave your cheque on the table, or leave. It's that simple. And that one sided.
You can find two, surely.
Illya

Well, what you are talking about isn't a bond... at all.

Furthermore, you go ahead and prove that it hasn't.

[cap41]

BVond , contract, its all semantics. Bottom line is as long as pilots keep signing them. We only have ourselves to blame. Personally i kinda see it as a 2 way street. I/You want to fly certain equipment. To do that I need to sign a bond. Company gets what they want. I/you get what we want.
If you don't like it. choose another industry.
Again, you enter an industry aware of the landscape. Than bitch and moan about the landscape.

Employers have the right to dictate the working environment. If you don't like it. You have 2 options, go elsewhere. Or, start your own company and treat the employees/pilots how you want to.

[Meatservo]

So then, if a potential employee is willing to be diligent before being hired, and makes it his/her business to look into the company's pay scheme including periodic cost-of-living increases and bonus opportunities, benefits package, advancement policy and SMS, and deems the situation to be acceptable to him/her for the period covered by the agreement, then what's the big deal?

The only one of these I have ever seen was worded in such a way as to stipulate that if I left the company "without just cause" (or something like that) then the terms of the agreement would kick in in favour of the employer.

So the company violating any of the above considerations (wages, benefits,etc) would be "just cause" for leaving, so that's covered right?

I don't want to disgust some of my anonymous colleagues by saying this but isn't this just a "contract"? Why should I be afraid to sign it? Isn't it my responsibility to hold the employer responsible for working conditions? Aren't all the examples we've been given of pilots being screwed by signing these things merely examples of misdemeanour on the part of the employer?

Why the fuss? I'm afraid maybe I haven't seen enough examples of this so-called "bond" to understand. The only one I've ever seen had that "just cause" in it and I am very aware of what constitutes "just cause".

Now I am pretty experienced and it wouldn't be too hard for me to find another job if I had to. I would certainly have the "balls" to look an employer in the eyes at an interview and ask for a conversation about what exactly I'm signing on for. AND to look them in the eyes at any later date to inform them that they aren't living up to their end of the bargain in my opinion.

But a twenty-two year old recently graduated licensee is the aviation equivalent of an acting-school student sitting on the casting couch interviewing for his/her first role in a commercial. Sitting there and saying "I don't work with children and I don't do nude scenes" probably does take some guts and it probably only works if you've got some other trick up your sleeve. If you know what I mean.

I don't like it anymore than you do. And by "it" I mean the fact that anyone sees these "agreements" as necessary. But I still haven't seen a good suggestion for how to make it all stop.

[Meatservo]

Still waiting for two verifiable examples of two way bonds in this industry. Not seeing any. When Wasaya and Bearskin ask for 10K up front.....guess what. Sign it "as is", leave your cheque on the table, or leave. It's that simple. And that one sided.
You can find two, surely.
Illya

Well, what you are talking about isn't a bond... at all.

Furthermore, you go ahead and prove that it hasn't.

OK, everybody STOP for a second. Are we discussing a company asking for MONEY? Or are we discussing a piece of paper that says "I agree that if I quit for no good reason before "ddmmyyy" I will be responsible to pay back "x%" of the cost of my training"?

Cause those are two different things. Taking out a loan or coughing up cash for the company to hold is waaaay different. I didn't think we were discussing THAT. No way, Jose. Money only flows FROM employers TO employees. That's the only way it works in my world.


I need to know what you guys are talking about before I continue this discussion!

[DonutHole]

Well, it is important to realize, we are not talking about bonds at all, we are talking about term contracts.

I am talking about term contracts termed as bond, where an employee enters an agreement with an employer, where the employer pays for training in return for a term contract, in event of a default, the training (all or a portion depending on the agreement) is paid back to the employer either through mutual agreement or collection action.

[B-rad]

The way I have heard a bond being explained is where a company takes out a loan to cover the training costs. The loan is taken out for XX months under the name of the employee and payments are made by the employer. If the employee leaves before the loan is paid off, the company stops making payments and the employee is held liable. Of course this means the employee must have credit available to cover the loan.
I have never been involved with this scheme but it is what I understand it to be when I've heard it explained from others.

[DonutHole]

So then, if a potential employee is willing to be diligent before being hired, and makes it his/her business to look into the company's pay scheme including periodic cost-of-living increases and bonus opportunities, benefits package, advancement policy and SMS, and deems the situation to be acceptable to him/her for the period covered by the agreement, then what's the big deal?

It doesn't even have to be about that. What is the dynamic at the time these people are signing the bond? They know it comes with a term so they must at least accept it, otherwise they would bolt. Just put down what you're agreeing to in the contract, everything they say they're going to give you, have them write it into the agreement. I mean, that's the whole thing, they're giving you something in return for something, what you give them is up to you as much as what they give you is up to them. If you can't come to a mutual agreement that they are willing to put into writing... well, what does that really say?

The only one of these I have ever seen was worded in such a way as to stipulate that if I left the company "without just cause" (or something like that) then the terms of the agreement would kick in in favour of the employer.

So the company violating any of the above considerations (wages, benefits,etc) would be "just cause" for leaving, so that's covered right?

I don't want to disgust some of my anonymous colleagues by saying this but isn't this just a "contract"? Why should I be afraid to sign it? Isn't it my responsibility to hold the employer responsible for working conditions? Aren't all the examples we've been given of pilots being screwed by signing these things merely examples of misdemeanour on the part of the employer?

Why the fuss? I'm afraid maybe I haven't seen enough examples of this so-called "bond" to understand. The only one I've ever seen had that "just cause" in it and I am very aware of what constitutes "just cause".

That's the thing, the terms of the 'training bond' as dictated make it malleable. You give up a LOT of your dictatory powers in a traditional bond as the money is protected by a fiduciary who oversees the deal. The guy who requires the bond can't @#$! you because there is oversight. That is a huge distinction, it's like a performance bond on the outside, but it is lacking the framework to qualify as one. That's why Canadian case law sees these for what they are, term contracts... however, that doesn't mean the public has to have the same impression. If you don't ask can you complain that you weren't told? I mean, at the base of it all some might say the employee employer relationship is adversarial in its foundation... but we all know how that worked out in practice right?

Thats why I don't understand why people like ilya are taking such a counterproductive position. If they would sit back for one second and see how empowering bonds could actually become, and the positive impact actual understanding of the deals can have we can work towards a solution to your last point here.

Now I am pretty experienced and it wouldn't be too hard for me to find another job if I had to. I would certainly have the "balls" to look an employer in the eyes at an interview and ask for a conversation about what exactly I'm signing on for. AND to look them in the eyes at any later date to inform them that they aren't living up to their end of the bargain in my opinion.

But a twenty-two year old recently graduated licensee is the aviation equivalent of an acting-school student sitting on the casting couch interviewing for his/her first role in a commercial. Sitting there and saying "I don't work with children and I don't do nude scenes" probably does take some guts and it probably only works if you've got some other trick up your sleeve. If you know what I mean.

I don't like it anymore than you do. And by "it" I mean the fact that anyone sees these "agreements" as necessary. But I still haven't seen a good suggestion for how to make it all stop.

Well, educate them. Think about it, we have a senior guy here right now today who is going to tell anybody he meets that training bonds are non-negotiable. I mean, kids today might lack experience, but they are very good at finding information, unfortunately, they seem to be subject to straw men and arguments from authority.

My advice, as a solution is this.

Kids, log everything. Write everything down. If you do this daily, it is admissible in court. If you are caught in a bad bond, start writing paper. If you're asked to push, get a name on a document signed with the request. Your rights are important, you can refuse unsafe work, and an operator who is going to lube you up and pound you with a crappy training bond is going to have some vulnerabilities. Once you've exposed them, how you use them is up to you, but it is leverage.

Following that advice, I know you're worried about burning bridges, but if you stand up to a crappy operator, it really will open more doors than it closes, that is the beauty and the curse of aviation you can't really hide your shit because everybody is paid to either be smart or observant.

[DonutHole]

The way I have heard a bond being explained is where a company takes out a loan to cover the training costs. The loan is taken out for XX months under the name of the employee and payments are made by the employer. If the employee leaves before the loan is paid off, the company stops making payments and the employee is held liable. Of course this means the employee must have credit available to cover the loan.
I have never been involved with this scheme but it is what I understand it to be when I've heard it explained from others.

There are a few different setups. Realizing that being green in the industry your available credit will be tapped out (a key point of leverage for the employer) the employer will self finance the individual, think of it as owing your soul to the company store. In which case, what you've done is essentially finance a type rating for yourself if you don't meet the term condition of the 'bond' through a third party.

The setup you described is actually the closest thing to a traditional bond, however fails because the bank has no fiduciary responsibility in ensuring the bond is fairly adjudicated. That is why we have companies set up to specifically deal with bonds in the traditional legal sense.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Well, it is important to realize, we are not talking about bonds at all, we are talking about term contracts.

I am talking about term contracts termed as bond, where an employee enters an agreement with an employer, where the employer pays for training in return for a term contract, in event of a default, the training (all or a portion depending on the agreement) is paid back to the employer either through mutual agreement or collection action.

That's the type we're discussing. Sorry about tossing out the other example.
I do notice however, even DonutHole has given an example of a bond that only benefits the employer. If we could write in some protection for the employee, we'd have a different ball game. However, I fear you'd be shown the door at the very inference.
Illya

[PointyEngine]

If you use the military to gain your university education, do you not have to guarantee so many years of service? If a company is going to spend the money training you, why should they not have the right to expect a certain time frame of service?
There is a lot of arrogance on this board. Bitching about how much a company makes in regards to how much they pay??? Really??? The company offers a salary, if you can't survive on that salary, don't take the job. Last time i checked pilots are lined up for entry level jobs. We only have ourselves to blame for the working conditions. We went in an industry knowing the outlook off jobs.

Then when that outlook doesn't change. We blame everybody else for our misfortunes. Instead we should look in the mirror and blame ourselves.

+1

A company is a business, they're not here to protect us, they're here to make money and get a job done. It's us who dictate how low we will be willing to stoop. Lets be serious, everyone in aviation is here for their own ego / self betterment / enjoyment. What we are looking for from our career will generally dictate which path we end up enjoying, or accepting and suffering through. Pilots rarely give a rat sh&t about the company, and will happily walk out fresh after training, hence we have bonds. Some companies use this as method to ensure they make some extra cash out of the poor sucker. Read it, make your decision and either sign it or look for another job. Really is quite simple.

[DonutHole]

Well, it is important to realize, we are not talking about bonds at all, we are talking about term contracts.

I am talking about term contracts termed as bond, where an employee enters an agreement with an employer, where the employer pays for training in return for a term contract, in event of a default, the training (all or a portion depending on the agreement) is paid back to the employer either through mutual agreement or collection action.

That's the type we're discussing. Sorry about tossing out the other example.
I do notice however, even DonutHole has given an example of a bond that only benefits the employer. If we could write in some protection for the employee, we'd have a different ball game. However, I fear you'd be shown the door at the very inference.
Illya

For me the idea is just get them to write down what they said they would give you, then the only issue is the term. Term doing what? That needs to be defined.

[PointyEngine]

Carrying out your duties as laid out in the employment contract? Is this really rocket science?

[Illya Kuryakin]

Carrying out your duties as laid out in the employment contract? Is this really rocket science?

Ah, you signed one didn't you. Happy you're happy with it.
Never had to sign one. Never will.
CIAO

[PointyEngine]

Carrying out your duties as laid out in the employment contract? Is this really rocket science?

Ah, you signed one didn't you. Happy you're happy with it.
Never had to sign one. Never will.
CIAO

Must make you feel great to be able to proclaim that to the world from your throne?? Lets keep in mind you also started flying quite some time ago as well. Reality check. How many operators these days have positions available for freshly minted CPL students (gender neutral...), where they will be driving either a multi-crew of turbine machine without any sort of bond? Yup, sweet jack all. There's still a couple around, but this time next year there will be less than there is now. It's now the industry normal.

What's the answer? Who knows?? I know one thing for sure, pilots are never going to work together with any form of collective bargaining power. There is always one weak link who will bring down any sort of change for their own betterment. Been there, seen it, got the shirt. Thanks.

[DonutHole]

So while we are dictating an agreement regarding terms of employment, let's advocate for some individual bargaining

[Wyatt Earp]

Amazing!! There wouldn't be bonds in the first place if all pilots had integrity and didn't walk away from their commitment when a better job came along after the company spent all the time and money training them.
And Illya the next time you apply for a job you should use your Avcanada pseudonym along with copies of your postings. See if you get hired

[Wyatt Earp]

Amazing!! There wouldn't be bonds in the first place if all pilots had integrity and didn't walk away from their commitment when a better job came along after the company spent all the time and money training them.
And Illya the next time you apply for a job you should use your Avcanada pseudonym along with copies of your postings. See if you get hired

[B-rad]

Amazing!! Employees wouldn't walk away from a job if they were paid what they are worth to begin with after they spent all that time and money getting their licence.

[Wyatt Earp]

B-rad
What fairy tail world are you from? Most pilots will leave as soon as there is an opportunity for a position on a bigger plane, bigger company, more money or better location.
It's a fact!

[PointyEngine]

Amazing!! Employees wouldn't walk away from a job if they were paid what they are worth to begin with after they spent all that time and money getting their licence.

Really??? I've seen someone walk out from a good company, getting paid $45k as an F.O and flying 400-500 hours a year on well maintained machines, to fly EXACTLY the same machine, for about $15k less a year. Ohhh, but the new company had a dash-8 to move onto... This is a typical card played by pilots to justify their need to supplement their ego with a bigger machine.

Ask half of the operators losing people to encore. If you have 500 MPIC, and just accepted a job from encore chances are you going somewhere to be paid less and work more. But hey, its OK. It'll be a quick upgrade and I get to fly a dash-8.

[B-rad]

That's a great question Wyatt Earp, thanks for writing in today. I'm from a fairytale world where employees are respected and paid a wage where they can afford a comfortable lifestyle. When you're paid a decent wage it reduces the reasons for leaving. Imagine taking on a job that you could pay down your debt on, afford a house, new car, pocket money for travel, and setting up a life. How many people do you think would be held captive there by a bond? There would be a line up to work there instead. Why do you think people chase the bigger plane and bigger company - they want the $$! Give good wages and you get that loyalty, thats why we work, FOR MONEY!