Training bond and fail PPC

[photofly]

What goes around, comes around. Its a small industry.

Wait a minute, don't you work in finance?

[digits_]

But a written agreement is still a written agreement, whether you sign it or not.

Is it? (honest question)

If it's written, and not signed, then that seems like a proposal to me. Doesn't a written agreement require that your acceptance of the agreement is also written down?

If I tell you 'I agree with what you wrote down', wouldn't that be an oral agreement of the written terms?

[digits_]

A company I worked for had a bond.

They forgot to ask one of the employees to sign it before training. They got the training, left within the timeframe of the bond and never had to pay.

Thats just stealing in my eyes.

And before the argument happens, as the “business owner”, commenting here…..its only “my” opinion that matters.

If one can’t be trusted to honour a simple contract, sure as heck can’t be trusted with million dollar equipment or peoples lives.

If I ran that company, I’d make sure to send that person's name to all my friends….running other aviation companies. I guarantee they probably all know each other.

How’s that?

It’s called blacklisting. And it happens.

What goes around, comes around. Its a small industry.

First of all, it is not stealing. Stealing has a legal definition, and this situation doesn't come close to it. If you go around blacklisting an employee for 'stealing' because they didn't sign a bond after the fact, I hope that employee does get some lawyers involved for damages done. I doubt a judge would agree that only 'your' opinion matters at that time.

Second, is it the employee's task to remind management 'heyyyyy, don't forget to bond me!'

The employee I'm talking about still stuck around for 7 months or so, like most employees at that particular company. So it's not like they got a free typerating out of it and went to the competition.

The gossip around base was that the employee replied to management's pressure with 'well I just got an offer for airline XXX. I'd rather do this job because it seems fun, but I can take their offer as well, what would you like me to do?'.
I'm not sure that's true, but I'd like to believe it is.

Note that a bond always spells out the duties of the employee, it never describes the detailed (often misrepresented) work conditions the employee can expect.

[2112]

A company I worked for had a bond.

They forgot to ask one of the employees to sign it before training. They got the training, left within the timeframe of the bond and never had to pay.

Thats just stealing in my eyes.

And before the argument happens, as the “business owner”, commenting here…..its only “my” opinion that matters.

If one can’t be trusted to honour a simple contract, sure as heck can’t be trusted with million dollar equipment or peoples lives.

If I ran that company, I’d make sure to send that person's name to all my friends….running other aviation companies. I guarantee they probably all know each other.

How’s that?

It’s called blacklisting. And it happens.

What goes around, comes around. Its a small industry.

It's also a two way street, pilots talk as well and it's those vindictive operators that had the hardest time attracting pilots prior to covid. Maybe with a recession on the horizon they will last another few years but the days of strong arming young pilots into one sided bonds are numbered.

[photofly]

But a written agreement is still a written agreement, whether you sign it or not.

Is it? (honest question)

If it's written, and not signed, then that seems like a proposal to me. Doesn't a written agreement require that your acceptance of the agreement is also written down?

If I tell you 'I agree with what you wrote down', wouldn't that be an oral agreement of the written terms?

If part of the proposal is to provide you with training, and you turn up for and accept the training, you have accepted the proposal. A court will very reasonably ask on what other basis you thought you were being provided the training, and where is your evidence of that other agreement?

Acceptance of a contract can be signified in writing or by conduct.

What a signature does is make it harder (but still
not impossible!) for the trainee to claim they didn’t know there was an agreement or what was in it. But if there’s evidence you were given a copy of the agreement sufficiently in advance to have had a chance to read it and take advice on it that’s very easily rebutted.

I don’t say a signature is worthless. I just say, don’t hang your future on the peg of not having signed an agreement for evidence of your acceptance of which your simple conduct will do instead.

[rookiepilot]

A company I worked for had a bond.

They forgot to ask one of the employees to sign it before training. They got the training, left within the timeframe of the bond and never had to pay.

Thats just stealing in my eyes.

And before the argument happens, as the “business owner”, commenting here…..its only “my” opinion that matters.

If one can’t be trusted to honour a simple contract, sure as heck can’t be trusted with million dollar equipment or peoples lives.

If I ran that company, I’d make sure to send that person's name to all my friends….running other aviation companies. I guarantee they probably all know each other.

How’s that?

It’s called blacklisting. And it happens.

What goes around, comes around. Its a small industry.

First of all, it is not stealing. Stealing has a legal definition, and this situation doesn't come close to it. If you go around blacklisting an employee for 'stealing' because they didn't sign a bond after the fact, I hope that employee does get some lawyers involved for damages done. I doubt a judge would agree that only 'your' opinion matters at that time.

Second, is it the employee's task to remind management 'heyyyyy, don't forget to bond me!'

The employee I'm talking about still stuck around for 7 months or so, like most employees at that particular company. So it's not like they got a free typerating out of it and went to the competition.

The gossip around base was that the employee replied to management's pressure with 'well I just got an offer for airline XXX. I'd rather do this job because it seems fun, but I can take their offer as well, what would you like me to do?'.
I'm not sure that's true, but I'd like to believe it is.

Note that a bond always spells out the duties of the employee, it never describes the detailed (often misrepresented) work conditions the employee can expect.

It’s stealing.

Honor your agreements. Written and oral.

Do your homework before agreeing to either. Its called “due diligence”, and your responsibility as a party to a contract.

[digits_]

But a written agreement is still a written agreement, whether you sign it or not.

Is it? (honest question)

If it's written, and not signed, then that seems like a proposal to me. Doesn't a written agreement require that your acceptance of the agreement is also written down?

If I tell you 'I agree with what you wrote down', wouldn't that be an oral agreement of the written terms?

If part of the proposal is to provide you with training, and you turn up for and accept the training, you have accepted the proposal. A court will very reasonably ask on what other basis you thought you were being provided the training, and where is your evidence of that other agreement?

I don't think I fully understand the distinction you're trying to make.

Why would that same court not ask the employer on what basis he claims a bond payout when the employee did not sign the bond agreement they required? And where the evidence is that the employee accepted the terms of the bond, even though they didn't sign it?

If it is referenced in the job offer, and the employee accepts the job offer but does not sign the bond, yet the company proceeds with hiring the employee and training him, why would the court then assume the employee accepted the bond?

What if the employee tells the court 'they wanted me to sign a bond, I declined, but they decided to hire me anyway because they needed a pilot'?

Acceptance of a contract can be signified in writing or by conduct.

What a signature does is make it harder (but still
not impossible!) for the trainee to claim they didn’t know there was an agreement or what was in it. But if there’s evidence you were given a copy of the agreement sufficiently in advance to have had a chance to read it and take advice on it that’s very easily rebutted.

I don’t say a signature is worthless. I just say, don’t hang your future on the peg of not having signed an agreement for evidence of your acceptance of which your simple conduct will do instead.

If we assume what that lawyer wrote in my link was correct, and a written agreement is required for an employer to recuperate training costs from an employee, does that then not mean a written signature is required?

Or, can you have a written agreement without a signature? Isn't a written signature an essential part of a written agreement?


I understand and agree you can ty to prove an oral agreement with emails and documents etc that weren't necessarily signed. I just don't think you can do that for a written agreement.

But that's all based on google and reddit level lawyer talk, so I'm happy to be proven wrong. Just curious for a reference or an example

[lownslow]

On the other hand, do my actions mean that the successful candidates were covering the training costs of the ones who failed?

No, your customers were covering all your training expenses and all your other business expenses.

Correct. That’s how the doors stay open. I’m no financial panther but I bet it’s on the first page of the textbook, maybe even before the table of contents.

Problem is, I have $20K into training a candidate who couldn’t cut it on a bond for $8k that I’m about to tear up because I’m a nice guy. So there’s a $20,000 expense sitting there that the company can thankfully cover, as demonstrated by still being in business. But that money is gone, a couple of turbines have moved closer to overhaul, a line pilot was borrowed for two weeks to teach the course and I’m in hot water with the CEO. Cool beans.

You know where I’d rather see that money go? Into the pockets of the line pilots but now it no longer exists. It was spent on some guy who either lied about his qualifications to get the job or had a glowing reference trying to get rid of him. Now we’re understaffed until I can find a replacement which hits revenue and I’m going to have to take the plane away from rev flights at some point to train the new guy, all the while praying he makes it. Make no mistake the whole staff feels that whether they know it or not.

[Bede]

^ that was probably the most rational post I've read on this forum for a long time.

[7ECA]

It’s called blacklisting. And it happens.

What goes around, comes around. Its a small industry.

Indeed it does, but it's rather frowned upon by Labour Law. Now, will an employee who gets the shaft from his shit-rat employer actually take the time to sue them to clear their name, or just more on, is another story altogether.

[rookiepilot]

It’s called blacklisting. And it happens.

What goes around, comes around. Its a small industry.

Indeed it does, but it's rather frowned upon by Labour Law. Now, will an employee who gets the shaft from his shit-rat employer actually take the time to sue them to clear their name, or just more on, is another story altogether.

Why not just Honor your word? Not split hairs to gain what is in reality a fake “edge” but wrecks your reputation?

I don’t get it.

Then again, I’m just trying to share timeless principles for long term success.

Not legal wrangling to get out of agreements made.

[7ECA]

Why not just Honor your word? Not split hairs to gain what is in reality a fake “edge” but wrecks your reputation?

I don’t get it.

Then again, I’m just trying to share timeless principles for long term success.

Not legal wrangling to get out of agreements made.

Honouring one's word, is one thing - being blacklisted by an employer for a perceived slight is a whole other thing. Apparently employees are the only ones whom are required to have any shred of decency, or honour, whereas employers seem to be given a pass by yourself - up to and including blacklisting.

I dare say, this thread on the idea of being beholden to a bond in the event of a failed PPC, is hardly asking for any sort of legal wrangling to get out of said agreement. It seems much more along the lines of, how can someone be expected to pay for training, when the training isn't beneficial to the employee who failed their PPC (there's no "edge" or "gain" there)?

Feel free to argue all you want about bonds as a whole, but in any other industry it is accepted as the cost of doing business that employees will have to be trained at the employer's expense.

[photofly]

In most industries the training is relatively cheap, or else is unlikely to provide an easy step to the next job.

How long does it take to “earn back” forklift training?

I think if a company offers an off the street applicant heavy truck driving lessons for free to employ them as a driver, there would be a bond.

[rookiepilot]

Why not just Honor your word? Not split hairs to gain what is in reality a fake “edge” but wrecks your reputation?

I don’t get it.

Then again, I’m just trying to share timeless principles for long term success.

Not legal wrangling to get out of agreements made.

Honouring one's word, is one thing - being blacklisted by an employer for a perceived slight is a whole other thing. Apparently employees are the only ones whom are required to have any shred of decency, or honour, whereas employers seem to be given a pass by yourself - up to and including blacklisting.

I dare say, this thread on the idea of being beholden to a bond in the event of a failed PPC, is hardly asking for any sort of legal wrangling to get out of said agreement. It seems much more along the lines of, how can someone be expected to pay for training, when the training isn't beneficial to the employee who failed their PPC (there's no "edge" or "gain" there)?

Feel free to argue all you want about bonds as a whole, but in any other industry it is accepted as the cost of doing business that employees will have to be trained at the employer's expense.

My post was in direct response to a poster alluding that it’s perfectly cool, honourable and moral, to skip out on a clear contractual agreement, and the business should just eat the cost. Signed or not, is beside the point, in my eyes. I suspect in many people's eyes. In any industry.

I am simply writing that there may be serious consequences for such choices — in the real world. Business is done, careers are advanced, through trust and relationships. I certainly would have zero tolerance for it.

Do your due diligence on an employer, before making such agreements. These aren’t children we are talking about.

You’re also treating this as an equal power relationship, which it is certainly not. Any such belief is pure fantasyland.

Ignore my words, I don’t care. Just giving real world advice.

[Aviatard]

It’s called blacklisting. And it happens.

What goes around, comes around. Its a small industry.

Then again, I’m just trying to share timeless principles for long term success.

Not legal wrangling to get out of agreements made.

Ah the time honored principle of blacklisting. That worked well in the 1950s so why not today?

[rookiepilot]

Next post someone will say, “Courts are corrupt too.”

https://ehlaw.ca/b-c-supreme-court-enfo ... ts-duress/

At trial, the Court dismissed all of the employee’s claims and allowed Carson Air’s claim for the costs of training. It noted that the employee could not establish that she signed the training bond under duress. Instead, she had signed similar training bonds in the past. The court found that the employer did not pressure the employee to sign the bond, and in fact made it clear to the employee that she need not sign the bond immediately and could seek legal advice prior to signing. Based on these facts, the Court enforced the terms of the Training Bond Agreement and allowed the employer’s claim.

[photofly]

I don't think I fully understand the distinction you're trying to make.

Why would that same court not ask the employer on what basis he claims a bond payout when the employee did not sign the bond agreement they required?

The court could, and would. And the answer would be, "I'm claiming the bond payout on the basis of the agreement I emailed to the respondent on such-and-such-a-date, which I know he received because in the same email I gave him the date and place of training, and he turned up for that training. "

And where the evidence is that the employee accepted the terms of the bond, even though they didn't sign it?

Because they turned up for the training which was offered in the same document. You can't pick and choose which parts of a contract you accept.

If it is referenced in the job offer, and the employee accepts the job offer but does not sign the bond, yet the company proceeds with hiring the employee and training him, why would the court then assume the employee accepted the bond?

Because they turned up for work, which was part of the job offer. Again, you can't pick and choose. It's all, or nothing.

What if the employee tells the court 'they wanted me to sign a bond, I declined, but they decided to hire me anyway because they needed a pilot'?

If the employee says, I returned a counter-offer where I emailed them explicitly I don't accept the bond, and I know they received the email because of <insert reason>, and they still let me attend the training then sure, the onus back on the employer. That's not the same as just not signing the bond, and turning up for the training anyway.

Whenever presented with a waiver or other document I don't want to sign, I cross out the clauses I don't like (or write clearly on it "I do not accept this document") and then sign it. If they still provide me the service, rent me the airplane, let me go skydiving or whatever, then now they've accepted my counter-proposal, demonstrated by their provision of a service, and I'm in the clear. For a training bond nothing stops you from editing the document or striking out the clauses that talk about a bond, and flinging it back. But that's different from just not signing it.

The point of a written contract is to stand as evidence of what the intentions of the parties were. When everyone signs the same bit of paper both parties find it very difficult to dispute, but it's not a strict requirement.

In fact, even if there is a written contract, courts have decided that sometimes terms written in the contract - agreed to by both sides - were actually a sham, and have reinterpreted the contract by removing, changing or adding terms that (the court decided) accurately reflected what both parties *really* agreed to, rather than just what they *said* they agreed to.

Acceptance of a contract can be signified in writing or by conduct.

What a signature does is make it harder (but still
not impossible!) for the trainee to claim they didn’t know there was an agreement or what was in it. But if there’s evidence you were given a copy of the agreement sufficiently in advance to have had a chance to read it and take advice on it that’s very easily rebutted.

I don’t say a signature is worthless. I just say, don’t hang your future on the peg of not having signed an agreement for evidence of your acceptance of which your simple conduct will do instead.

If we assume what that lawyer wrote in my link was correct, and a written agreement is required for an employer to recuperate training costs from an employee, does that then not mean a written signature is required?

I don't think that lawyer was right. A training bond is a contract, and there's no statute that requires any part of a contract to be in writing, other than a contract for the sale of real property (land). I think what they meant was that without a written agreement you have no realistic chance of enforcing what you (claim) the terms of your agreement were. There may even be case law to that effect, but I'm not aware of it.

Or, can you have a written agreement without a signature? Isn't a written signature an essential part of a written agreement?

Every time you park in an underground car park you're implicitly agreeing to the written terms posted on the wall, which say things like you're not guaranteed a parking space, the owner assumes no liability for damage, and explains the costs of failing to pay the fee for your parking time, and what-not.

That is absolutely a written contract - there it is in writing - but you don't need to sign anything to be bound by it. You signal your acceptance by leaving your car in the car park. If you try to repudiate the contract (and some people do) the court will say you saw, or ought to have seen the (written) terms, and those were the only conditions on offer under which you were permitted to leave your car. What leads you to believe there is another set of conditions that permitted you to park there? Of course it's possible that you do actually have a good answer to that. But you probably don't.

I understand and agree you can ty to prove an oral agreement with emails and documents etc that weren't necessarily signed. I just don't think you can do that for a written agreement.

But that's all based on google and reddit level lawyer talk, so I'm happy to be proven wrong. Just curious for a reference or an example

A written agreement isn't required for an employment contract. That may vary by jurisdiction, but I know it's not required in Ontario, the UK (I'm most familiar with UK law) or federally in Canada. The only contracts that have to be in writing (and signed) are contracts for the sale of land.

I know Wikipedia isn't a perfect authority, but sometimes it does have interesting stuff. Here's something relevant from the page on Offer and Acceptance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance)

For the acceptance, the essential requirement is that the parties had each from a subjective perspective engaged in conduct manifesting their assent

I offer you training under a bond, you turn up for the training, and I provide the training. I'm pretty sure that meets the test.

[digits_]

@photofly

Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand the points you are trying to make.

[digits_]

You’re also treating this as an equal power relationship, which it is certainly not. Any such belief is pure fantasyland.

Of course it isn't. Which is why I have a certain respect and sympathy for employees that manage to get out of the bond due to screw ups by the employer. Seriously, if the employer -which is in a much stronger position than the employee- can't even make sure their contracts are signed, I generally don't feel bad if an employee takes advantage of that.

If both sides of the agreement describe all duties from both parties, then it would be a dick move to try and find a legal loophole to get out of the agreement. But that's a fantasyland as well. I haven't read a bond that was truly honest about all working conditions the employee would encounter. Most of that info is only shared with the employee once they have access to the COM (often protected by a confidentiality agreement), during line idnoc (so once training is done) or during day to day operations. At all those times, it's extremely impractical and often too late for the employee to say 'hey, I didn't agree to do this for X years!'

Some possible real life examples:
- Pilot gets hired, airline tells him they can live wherever they want, but when on reserve you have to meet a 2 hour call out. Employee lives 1 hour from the airport, signs a bond, and is happy. Then finds out a 10 hour min rest is in place, which makes it impossible for him to get 8 hours of rest. Management's reply: 'Yes you can live anywhere, but if you live too far and don't get your min rest, that's your choice, not the company's'.
- Pilot gets hired for right seat, is being told he will upgrade to left seat, based on performance and seniority. Accepts crappy FO pay and a multi year bond. Gets a good review. Company hires DEC 'because we don't have time to upgrade you'
- Pilot gets hired for a medevac job and is told you work 14 hours, then have 10 hours of rest. Pilot accepts and signs bond, expecting a 14 - 10 - 14 - 10 - ... schedule. Only to find out your day actually only starts when you get your first dispatch, constantly mixing day and night shifts.

Companies that bond their pilots intentionally make it hard for future pilots to find out about the shitty side of their operation. After all, the existence of a bond proves that there is a dark side. Otherwise a bond would not be required. However, no pilot would ever get hired if they demanded to read the COM before signing a bond or job agreement, or if they asked for all employment conditions to be listed in the bond.

I certainly would have zero tolerance for it.

Which is your right. But that doesn't mean you can make things up and accuse them of things they didn't do. If you get a reference call and you tell them 'they said they would sign a bond, but we forgot, and after training they didn't want to sign the bond anymore', then that makes sense. If you tell them 'they stole from the company', that would be completely incorrect.


Unfortunately, in Canadian aviation (and possibly elsewhere) a bond really means "I agree to pay you XX XXX dollars once I find out what you've been hiding"

[rookiepilot]

Hence I also say, “do careful research on any prospective employers”. — before agreeing to anything.

[Bede]

In most industries the training is relatively cheap, or else is unlikely to provide an easy step to the next job.

As a somewhat ironic aside, companies with a bond overstate what the training actually costs. (An upgrade PPC costs no more than recurrent FO training.) On the flip side, when you negotiate with an airline and point out the cost of training a new pilot because pilots are leaving, you're told that training doesn't cost anything.

[rudder]

A training bond is a contract. In order for there to be an enforceable contract, there must be ‘consideration’ that flows to both parties. Consideration = benefit.

I would think that unsuccessful training would void any such agreement. And I suspect that has been tested in law and as a result the “you will still be bound if unsuccessful” language was added.

I still think the bond would be unenforceable if the training did not result in a successful PPC (including extra training and at least 1 additional attempt) as it could be argued that the candidate ultimately derived no benefit. It might be enforceable if it could be proven that the candidate intended to be unsuccessful in order to void the bond.

[digits_]

In most industries the training is relatively cheap, or else is unlikely to provide an easy step to the next job.

As a somewhat ironic aside, companies with a bond overstate what the training actually costs. (An upgrade PPC costs no more than recurrent FO training.) On the flip side, when you negotiate with an airline and point out the cost of training a new pilot because pilots are leaving, you're told that training doesn't cost anything.

Oh sooooooooo true

[rookiepilot]

A training bond is a contract. In order for there to be an enforceable contract, there must be ‘consideration’ that flows to both parties. Consideration = benefit.

I would think that unsuccessful training would void any such agreement. And I suspect that has been tested in law and as a result the “you will still be bound if unsuccessful” language was added.

Can I get a full refund if i take PPL training from an FTU and can’t pass my ride, then?

[rudder]

A training bond is a contract. In order for there to be an enforceable contract, there must be ‘consideration’ that flows to both parties. Consideration = benefit.

I would think that unsuccessful training would void any such agreement. And I suspect that has been tested in law and as a result the “you will still be bound if unsuccessful” language was added.

Can I get a full refund if i take PPL training from an FTU and can’t pass my ride, then?

That is a false equivocation.

We are taking about ‘contract law’. What you are referring to is a service provided. Just like getting an oil change.