NeverBlue wrote:you perceive you know it all.
Well...I don't know what you mean by that but I do know exactly what happened...and there was no court ruling.
I never ever said they weren't contracts...of course they're contracts.
What I said was that they're not employment contracts if there are no conditions of employment in them. You don't get fired if you break the training bond do you?
...no "cases" to refer to DH?
Any examples from anyone who has had to pay back money for training? It would be great to here the story....
Do some digging and educate yourself. Im not referring to specific cases because Im trying to avoid spoonfeeding you. But since you insist on being spoonfed.
This is precisely what happened in the 2011 case, Northern Thunderbird Air v. Van Haron. The pilot signed a training bond agreement but after having completed the training. The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision that there was no consideration for the training bond agreement, since the employer did not provide any further benefit to the pilot after the agreement was signed. Therefore, the training bond was unenforceable
??
There is this thing called google.
It's obvious that these are contracts, and that contract law applies. That is why a well written bond is enforceable, and a poorly executed bond is not. It's all based on contract law.
Only the perception that these are non-negotiable bonds make them so.
If you are happy with that, fill your boots, but don't do the up and comers bad by perpetuating the b.s.
Now, if you would, please lay out a logical case with at least one link disproving my position that training bonds are not simply contracts, and as such are open to negotiation for consideration on a two-way basis.
So tactful of you to bring my mother into the conversation. Obviously, I'm dealing with a real pro, so I'd better watch myself.
