A little help regarding employment contracts

[DrewBlows]

Does a "training contract" guarantee you get paid if you are furloughed? If the answer is no, tell the company to "go fudge themselves." For that matter tell them to "go fudge themselves" no matter what.

 

[crxpilot]

Tell your friend to dont sign for any certified letters and if the sheriff comes knocking on the door to serve papers, dont answer the door. They eventually go away, and so does your problem!

 

[Guitar Guy]

I read that before. The only issue with all of this is that every state is different with these situations.

I'd be interested to hear a good attorney's opinion on some of the issues raised in the Lakes' case. For instance, the issue raised with regards to whether or not the new-hire was coerced to sign the contract. In the case cited, the court said that the new-hire wasn't coerced because he was free to leave Lakes and seek employment elsewhere. Some posters here at FI claim that these training contracts are void because they were signed under "duress" and that doesn't seem to be the opinion the case summary I linked to.

 

[tyuwerty]

If a company tells a new hire about the contract AFTER the pilot has started employment, that could be coercion.

If the company explains that there is a contract BEFORE employment starts, then no coercion. There is free choice involved and the pilot can easily go elsewhere or decline the job.

Likewise, if a company says you have to sign this contract and upgrade or we will fire you, then that is coercion.

Conversely, if they say that upgrade is available but we need a 1 year contract. If you don’t sign, no problem, you just don’t upgrade. That is not coercion.

You are fighting payment on an agreement that YOU WILLING BROKE, that gives them the high ground. If people really detest training contracts so much, the solution is simple, STOP SIGNING them. Eventually, companies will change their ways, just like they changed from pay for training in the 90's.

The argument about furlough protection doesn’t wash either, the majority of contracts out there drop dead in the event of furlough.

The fact of the matter is... If you signed the contract, you wanted the position/job/upgrade bad. Now that you have more experience provided by that position you want to jump to something better and you don't want to wait.

 

[CitationUltra]

On general principles I agree with you, on pilot training contracts specifically, I disagree.

- These contracts are essentially coerced.

- The company did not spend any money that they weren't going to spend in the first place.

- The training is NOT valid anywhere else...if you get hired at another airline, you will have to redo all training, even if you fly the same airplane.

These contracts are basically coerced indentured servitude.

A training contract is reasonable if the company buys you a college degree or a type rating in a citation (or another GA plane), and you ran off and used that training to get a better job WHICH REQUIRES THAT TYPE RATING. They provided a marketable certification and you owe them for that...because they could have hired someone off the street who was already types. Airlines can't do that.

Airline training almost never has direct market value since you have to redo all training from scratch at a new company (737 type is a possible exception).

When you leave an airline for a better airline it's not because of a type rating, it's because of your experience. Airlines don't get to charge us for acquiring experience folks (except the ass clowns at GIA )

That's not how the court will look at it. All those putative mitigating factors you mentioned have no bearing on the core issue: There is a contract. There was consideration. It was memorialized in writing. It was executed by the parties. The agreement was entered into by a persons who are presumed to be mentally competent. The court looks to the contract, not your justifications for abrogating it.

 

[CitationUltra]

I'd be interested to hear a good attorney's opinion on some of the issues raised in the Lakes' case. For instance, the issue raised with regards to whether or not the new-hire was coerced to sign the contract. In the case cited, the court said that the new-hire wasn't coerced because he was free to leave Lakes and seek employment elsewhere. Some posters here at FI claim that these training contracts are void because they were signed under "duress" and that doesn't seem to be the opinion the case summary I linked to.

No one is coerced in signing an employment contract as a condition of employment.

It would be liking welshing on an auto financing contract, then saying "I was coerced, because if I hadn't signed, the dealer would not give me my new Lexus."

This is not to say that anyone should sign these contracts. I am against 'em, as are most of us here. What I am trying to do is discourage anyone here from entering into any of these agreements on the premise that they are not enforceable. They are.

 

[Guitar Guy]

What I am trying to do is discourage anyone here from entering into any of these agreements on the premise that they are not enforceable. They are.

Unfortunately, that is true in many instances. The best advice someone could take away from this whole thread is to either NOT sign a training contract with whatever consequences that entails or to have the training contract reviewed by an attorney to understand the agreement in detail, including enforceability, before signing it. Getting legal advice could cost a little bit but it would be far cheaper than losing a lawsuit and having to repay thousands of dollars years later.

 

[CitationUltra]

Unfortunately, that is true in many instances. The best advice someone could take away from this whole thread is to either NOT sign a training contract with whatever consequences that entails or to have the training contract reviewed by an attorney to understand the agreement in detail, including enforceability, before signing it. Getting legal advice could cost a little bit but it would be far cheaper than losing a lawsuit and having to repay thousands of dollars years later.

You're right.

A few dollars spent prior to signing can save thousands later.

Despite what has been posted here, i.e. "tell them to go f*** themselves, don't answer the door...etc." defending a civil suit will cost a pilot thousands--totally out of proportion to the relative cost of prosecuting the enforcement on the part of the airline, and then in the end, the airline wins, obtains a civil judgement, and goes about the process of collecting, with all that implies, liens, attachments, ruined credit, etc.

The airlines are represented by their corporate counsel who know that they must pursue these actions and then collect on their judgement, or risk the counter-complaint that they don't act to enforce, or selectively enforce.