Bad companies or good complainers? VOTE NOW!

[jelloshotpilot]

the 411 on emspilot00

I used to basically own him when he worked under me! He was my red-headed stepchild!!

 

[lonelyguy]

emspilot00

It is about time Rob admits to how he was treating you over the years.Where is emspilot00 hidding under the rock that he came out from under.

 

[Dangerkitty]

That's grounds for a lawsuit from hell. Casually, professionally tell them that you'd be more than happy to go to recurrent, but you refuse to sign a contract for it. If they fire you, get a lawyer. You'll clean up.

CapnVegetto,

It depends if you live in an "at-will" state of not. If you live in an "at-will" work state (like I do) the employer can hire and fire at will. You can get fired for having a nose that is too big. Doesn't matter.

You can sue your employer all you want but you will not win if you live in an at will State.

 

[Publishers]

The "at will" is a good point. Furthermore, oyu assume that the company paid for the intial which might not be the case.
Frankly, the reason for all these training contracts is because of pilots. The resumes I see have hardly had the ink dry from the last place these guys were. I asked on pilot why he would want to leave a job with a good employer when he had only been there like 8 months. His answer, "this is how the business is, you are always looking for the next job."
Employers want to get their training dollars back by employment. Do not try to tell me if they treated the employee better that they would not leave. I have been at this too long for that. For the most part, they leave because bigger, faster, ususally pays more and helps you up the ladder to the airlines or whatever the end goal is.
If I hire you or any other employee, you are on a ninety day probation period. It is a significant investment to train and until the ninety days are up, we really do not know if we even want to keep you for permant employee status. Even with you signing the contract, there is risk on our part. If we are managing an aircraft and it leaves our contract, we may be out the money and we may never get the worth of the school.
There are a good many issues here besides someone trying to tie someone to a contract for training.

 

[lonelyguy]

Publishers

The "at will" is a good point. Furthermore, oyu assume that the company paid for the intial which might not be the case.
Frankly, the reason for all these training contracts is because of pilots. The resumes I see have hardly had the ink dry from the last place these guys were. I asked on pilot why he would want to leave a job with a good employer when he had only been there like 8 months. His answer, "this is how the business is, you are always looking for the next job."
Employers want to get their training dollars back by employment. Do not try to tell me if they treated the employee better that they would not leave. I have been at this too long for that. For the most part, they leave because bigger, faster, ususally pays more and helps you up the ladder to the airlines or whatever the end goal is.
If I hire you or any other employee, you are on a ninety day probation period. It is a significant investment to train and until the ninety days are up, we really do not know if we even want to keep you for permant employee status. Even with you signing the contract, there is risk on our part. If we are managing an aircraft and it leaves our contract, we may be out the money and we may never get the worth of the school.
There are a good many issues here besides someone trying to tie someone to a contract for training.

The answer to your question is mutual trust, employees that are not trusted or treated with respect will not trust there employers and will never stay.This is management 101 for the stupid employers on the website.

 

[Publishers]

This has nothing to do with trust at all. They move because there may well not be advancement at their current location. A company may have a Citation 500 SP, it may be all they need, and, in the company I was in for quite awhile, they had it for twenty years. Pilots careers by their nature are for the most part advanced by qualifying for larger equipment and time building. Additional ratings also are a signicant factor.
I do not know why it is (sic) but many pilots are always pushing for a bigger quicker aircraft. As you gain value in the marketplace with things like pic turbine time, many pilots move on because their employer is not looking for that bigger quicker aircraft.
For the most part trust is not part of the equation. It is merely trying to maintain a growth pattern to that big airline job or that BBJ job or whatever. There is little sense of obligation to the guy who just paid your recurrent when Captain bigger quicker calls with that open captain slot flying the bigger quicker.

 

[lonelyguy]

Publishers

This has nothing to do with trust at all. They move because there may well not be advancement at their current location. A company may have a Citation 500 SP, it may be all they need, and, in the company I was in for quite awhile, they had it for twenty years. Pilots careers by their nature are for the most part advanced by qualifying for larger equipment and time building. Additional ratings also are a signicant factor.
I do not know why it is (sic) but many pilots are always pushing for a bigger quicker aircraft. As you gain value in the marketplace with things like pic turbine time, many pilots move on because their employer is not looking for that bigger quicker aircraft.
For the most part trust is not part of the equation. It is merely trying to maintain a growth pattern to that big airline job or that BBJ job or whatever. There is little sense of obligation to the guy who just paid your recurrent when Captain bigger quicker calls with that open captain slot flying the bigger quicker.

I know from experience that not all pilot want to move into bigger and more advanced equipment,some like a quality of life or where they are flying.The theory that all pilots will move up to bigger and better equipment is just not true.

 

[CaptainSpaz]

Publishers, what the devil is with the "(sic)" in your last post?

 

[lonelyguy]

Publishers

Publishers, what the devil is with the "(sic)" in your last post?

It really does not matter in most cases if they are second in command or pilot in command they will stay depending on how they are treated.

 

[CaptainSpaz]

LOL! Even if he meant SIC (like as opposed to PIC) it still doesnt make sense. I think he meant (sic) as in the misunderstood if not bizzare grammatical correction used when quoting another persons words. Either way, it doesn't seem to fit. Was just curious...