Enforcing "Training Contracts"? Evidently, they are enforcible...

[Ace-of-the-Base]

OK folks, I'll sum up my opinion:

1. Don't sign something your going to try to get out of later.
2. If you don't want to work for a company that has contracts, don't. It doesn't mean they're a bad company, it's just the way they do business.
3. Don't put down anyone for how they run their career. They're not doing anything to hurt your future.

It's a free country folks. And BTW, pilots make more than doctors. There are a lot of people who work much longer hours than us and get paid alot less.

Ace

 

[Ty Webb]

These are always enforceable. Think of yourself as a contractor. You sign a contract for one year of work, if you leave then you should have to pay the penalty. It isn't even close to being slavery as some have suggested in the past.

You are not correct. These are NOT always enforceable. It depends on the state law where they are signed, and the way the agreement is structured.

This may come as a surprise to you, with your "mega" experience in this industry, but there are many shady operators out there . . . . some are little better than "battered Pilot shelters". Many of them make promises to pilots regarding training, maintenance, schedule, pay, and advancement that turn out to be very far from the reality.

While I have always abided by any agreement I have entered into, an agreement is a two-way street, and I have seen more employers crap on the pilots than vice versa, especially at the entry-level position, as flying freight in a twin commander or a CE402 definitely is.

Do you have any idea what the operating costs were for training in a CE402 in 1996, when this poor slob signed this agreement? Probably less than $200./hour. How many hours do you think they gave him in the airplane? 10? How many of them were empty legs, or post-maintenance inspection flights? How much do you think the training was really worth? Maybe $2,000. tops?

Any chance they told him the (unpaid) training would take a week or two, during which time he would be spending his own time studying and waiting around for someone to be available to train him, but ended up spending a month waiting (unpaid) and on his own dime? That would be pretty common. What about HIS time, HIS expectations of being treated fairly? What is that worth?

Now, I don't know anything about the operator named in this lawsuit, nor the pilot, but in many cases, companies that have to rely on training contracts have abnormally high turnover because they aren't taking care of their employees, and for you to blindly state that "these agreements are always enforceable" is not only incorrect, but also naive and insulting to your fellow pilots.

Sheesh!

 

[qmaster3]

thanks for the insight guys. Any employer outside of Uncle Sam who puts a contract in my face will have it respectfully shoved up their a$$

 

[User546]

OK folks, I'll sum up my opinion:
3. Don't put down anyone for how they run their career. They're not doing anything to hurt your future.

Not according to Gulfstream 2000, he'll sure delight in telling you different!

 

[midlifeflyer]

In many other industries, training is provided that is just as costly and yet there are no training contracts.

Name a few. I've never heard of a hospital that paid for someone's medical school or a law firm that paid for someone to go to law school (unless they person has already been with them for years.)

You mentioned "big corporations" that pay for training? Sure. For training that helps them do their current job better. Not for the training that provides them the basic skills to do their job to being with.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You are not correct. These are NOT always enforceable. It depends on the state law where they are signed, and the way the agreement is structured.

Well, my educated guess is that they are usually enforceable. "The way the agreement is structured" is a precondition to whether =any= contract is enforceable.

There may be one or two, but I'm not aware of a state in which a contract of the type being discussed is, for example, void for illegality or unenforceable as being against public policy.

 

[Khirsah]

Your analogy is flawed, midlifeflyer.

I wouldn't expect to walk into a company with my private and have them pay to train me up to legal levels. Just as a person shouldn't expect to walk into a hospital and ask to get hired as a surgeon without going through medical school.

If I were to be hired at a company that operated a certain aircraft I've never flown before and I had 2000/200, I should rightly expect that they would train me on their own equipment at their own cost. Just as if a surgeon were hired at a hospital that performed procedures with specialized equipment that required additional training, he or she should (and would) expect that the hospital would train him on their equipment at their own cost.

Now, both the company and the hospital would be perfectly justified in saying, "We need someone with experience on such and such equipment," while turning down employment. Once they hire you, however, it should be (and in most other industries IS) their responsibility to train you up to their standards.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Maybe. There's training and there's training.

Then there's industry common practice and some of the reasons for it. I picture many 135 operators as being fairly small with budgets that can't absorb a constant flow of people who are understandably interested in receiving the experience they need for the next steppingstone for their careers and then moving on to something better.

The contract comes down to: "Potential employee, I know that this is just a stop on your planned career. We are wiling to train you, but in exchange we'd like you to commit to us for X years. If you leave before then, we'd like to recoup some portion of the training fees that we'll have to spend again."

Whether one thinks it's unfair pretty much depend on the specific terms and one's perspective. I don't think that the 1-year in the Nebraska case was particularly unfair to anyone.

 

[Ty Webb]

Well, my educated guess is that they are usually enforceable. "The way the agreement is structured" is a precondition to whether =any= contract is enforceable.

Your "edumacated guess" contradicts my direct observation.

The "enforceable" agreements are usually structured as a "loan", in other words, as a promissory note.

Otherwise, you start getting into "indentured servitude" issues. What if, for example, a company promises you that you will fly 90 hours a month and be paid $20./hr, or $1800./month. Then, the flying dries up somewhat, and now you are only able to fly 65 hours a month, or $1300. Are you still obligated to stick around, even though you have budgeted your family around the $1800. you were promised? What if they cut your flying back to 20 hours a month, and now you are making $400./month. Are you still obligated to remian there for a year? Well, where do you draw the line?

PArt 135 piston training is not that expensive. It is not like sending a guy to FSI for 3 weeks to get a G-V type. An employer has to make a decision . . . either treat pilots well enough that they stick around for a while, or pay for more training events . . . . it's not rocket science, and most companies manage to do it without a training contract.

One of the problems with this industry is the number of operators trying to do things on a shoestring budget, and another is pilots who are willing to work for next to nothing . . . . .

 

[bobbysamd]

Training contract enforceability

Well, my educated guess is that they are usually enforceable. "The way the agreement is structured" is a precondition to whether =any= contract is enforceable.

There may be one or two, but I'm not aware of a state in which a contract of the type being discussed is, for example, void for illegality or unenforceable as being against public policy.

I second midlife. Unless a contract is for an illegal purpose, there is no reason not to believe that it cannot be enforced or set aside. Training contracts are not for an illegal purpose.

Whether a company opts to enforce a training contract is another matter, but assume that if you breach the contract that it will be enforced.