Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Involuntary Servitude

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Freight Dog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,232
Not meaning to start a flame war, but can anyone else see how this could corelate to PFT scams?




---------



Involuntary Servitude Case Opens

By JAYMES SONG
.c The Associated Press

HONOLULU (AP) - The owner of an American Samoa garment factory had employees starved and beaten and threatened to have them deported if they spoke out about working conditions, a federal prosecutor told jurors.

``This case is about modern day slavery and this defendant's greed,'' federal prosecutor Susan French said during opening statements Wednesday in an involuntary servitude case.

Kil Soo Lee, of South Korea, and two of his managers, Virginia Solia`i and Robert Atimalala, were charged last year with holding hundreds of Vietnamese and Chinese workers in involuntary servitude at the Daewoosa Samoa Ltd. factory.

If convicted on all 22 counts, Lee faces up to 390 years in prison, Atimalala up to 80 years, and Solia`i up to 210 years. Dozens of witnesses are expected to take the stand in the trial, which could last up to five months.

Defense lawyers told jurors the plant had labor problems, in part because of language differences and financial difficulties. Atimalala and Solia`i's attorneys also said their clients had little or nothing to do with supervising employees.

The now-closed factory in the U.S. territory 2,300 miles south of Hawaii had made clothes for J.C. Penney and other retailers before the U.S. Labor Department reported worker abuses.

Workers had aspirations of the ``American dream'' for a better life, earning good benefits and sending money back to their families, prosecutors said, but what they discovered was the opposite.

Seamstresses, who were required to pay thousands of dollars to secure a job at Daewoosa, were housed in a factory dormitory that was fenced in and guarded, prosecutors said.

Trinh Thi Hao, a former Daewoosa seamstress, took the witness stand and told the court she used her home in Vietnam as collateral and borrowed money to pay the $5,000 fee required to work at the company.


The money went to Daewoosa and a Vietnamese government-owed labor export company, International Manpower Supply, she said.

On Nov. 28, 2000, Lee ordered a mass beating of Vietnamese workers who did not work or follow directions, French said. In the ``vicious attack,'' one worker had her eye gouged out, she said.

``I remember that day. I was beaten,'' Hao testified.

If workers complained about the conditions or about not getting paid, they would be deported back to their countries, where they would be saddled with heavy unpaid debts, prosecutors said.

Lee's public defender, Alexander Silvert, said workers were upset by contractual problems with International Manpower Supply, leading them to start work slowdowns, or refuse to work outright.

``They challenged Mr. Lee,'' he said.

Solia`i's attorney, Pamela Tamashiro, told jurors that her client did only menial jobs at Daewoosa. Atimalala's attorney, Barry Edwards, said his client was a ``peacekeeper'' at the plant but was not involved in day-to-day operations.

Lee, 52, also is charged with extortion, money laundering and attempting to bribe a bank official to influence his application for a $500,000 loan.
 
P-F-T

I see a correlation. For that matter, there are plenty of illegal alien schemes in which undocumented people pay to be smuggled into the U.S.

Was Kathie Lee in on this deal? :rolleyes:

PS-cvsfly, below raises a good point about P-F-T being voluntary. No one holds a gun to your head to P-F-T, although it may seem that way to some people.
 
Last edited:
Spare me. What about PFT is involuntary. Tired of all the whinning. I had a chance to go to ComAir in 1997 - PFT. I turned it down. Maybe I would have been in good shape by now if I had, maybe not. I'm comfortable with my decision.
 
Not really a very good comparison. While those on the bottom rungs of the pay scale may complain about their wages, few employers in the United States make a policy of gouging out their employees eyes to settle disputes.

In the case cited above, employees paid a trememdous personal price in an effot to leave an oppresive society for a better life, and were trapped into slavery.

In the case of PFT programs, individuals fork over money to buy a job that the rest of us had to earn.

There isn't much of a comparison.

Additionally, after "Pft" folks buy their station in life, generally they aren't locked in a compound, beaten, and subjected to having their eyes gouged from their sockets. Or have I missed something? Has some drastic change occured with contracts and policies lately, of which we're not aware?
 
avbug said:
Not really a very good comparison. While those on the bottom rungs of the pay scale may complain about their wages, few employers in the United States make a policy of gouging out their employees eyes to settle disputes.

In the case cited above, employees paid a trememdous personal price in an effot to leave an oppresive society for a better life, and were trapped into slavery.

In the case of PFT programs, individuals fork over money to buy a job that the rest of us had to earn.

There isn't much of a comparison.


I'd say there is. I mean let's look at Gulfstream for example. Sure, they won't gouge their eyes out to settle a dispute, but they sell an American job in a form of a rental mostly to foreigners. But in any case, whoever wants what should be a regular job, has to pay for the privilege to work and earn money for the airline. I can clearly see a similarity.

If you read some names on the scablist, check out how many scabs were fired from Gulfstream for scamming the company.
 
I don't see a correllation between the two. On the surface, yes, they are similar but I see a suttle difference, and hopefully bobbysamd can back me up (having a legal background and understanding suttle differences in language).

No one in this country really pays for a job. People pay for the training to get that job. Unfortunately you can't get the job without the training. Hence the never ending circle and discussion.

Comair, well known in the past for PFT, never required you to pay for your job. Only the training for that job. In fact there were lots of people at Comair who did not have to pay if they had enough experience.

Gulfstream is not selling a job. They are selling flight training.
 
skyboat said:

No one in this country really pays for a job. People pay for the training to get that job. Unfortunately you can't get the job without the training. Hence the never ending circle and discussion.

Comair, well known in the past for PFT, never required you to pay for your job. Only the training for that job. In fact there were lots of people at Comair who did not have to pay if they had enough experience.

{Gulfstream is not selling a job}. They are selling flight training.

Time to wake up and smell reality. There was a time, probably to return as long as there are people around with logic such as yours, when a current/qualified E120 Captain (that means that he needed NO "training"; indoc yes, training NO) could not be hired by Comair unless he paid Comair upwards of $12000. Some carriers (like COEX) had a policy to waive the fee for people who had over a certain amount of time. Sounded good, but the anecdotal evidence says that only a tiny percentage of new hires were hired under that policy. IE, it was only there to give the company plausible deniability and to allow the PFT'rs to say that their choice was only to pay for training because the truly qualified could get hired without the payment.

I imagine that the FAA would be interested to hear that Gulfstream was employing a pilot who was still in "training". No matter what, I'm pretty sure that the Gulfstream FO's hold commercial multi certificates and have passed a 121 FO check ride. They are paying for a job, or for a certain amount of experience, not for "training".

8N
 
Enigma-

I don't disagree with what you say at all, in fact I agree with you wholehartedly. Unfortunately, the original poster was trying to correlate involuntary servitude with PFT. I was merely trying to point out that there is a difference and you can't compare involuntary servitude with PFT.

Comair never required 12,000 PFT. And yes, the PFT could be waived under certain circumstances. I don't know about COEX, I don't work there. But we are splitting hairs here. The fact is that PFT is a policy that is hopefully gone for good from carriers like Comair and COEX. Unfortunately I don't ever think we will ever see the likes of Gulfstream go away as long as there are people willing to ante up the money.

I am sure that the FAA is quite familier with Gulfstream as they obviously have a POI being a 121 carrier.
 
gulfstream

Not to fan the flames too much here, but I just saw an ad in Plane and Pilot for Gulfstream. They had photos of some guy at 0 hours just starting, up to 250 hours in the right seat of an RJ for Continental Connection!

I suppose training specifically for that cockpit for 250 hours might help, but I don't feel as if I'm yet qualified for an RJ right seat, and doubt this guy's captain thought he was.... Seems as if that would put a great deal of stress on the captain with a 250 hr pilot in the right seat of a passenger jet.
 
Comair in 1997 required about $300 for the interview/sim evaluation, about $10,000 for training and then paid $18,000 the first year. I declined and they kept calling back.
 
Gulfstream ads

Pilotadjuster said:
Not to fan the flames too much here, but I just saw an ad in Plane and Pilot for Gulfstream. They had photos of some guy at 0 hours just starting, up to 250 hours in the right seat of an RJ for Continental Connection!
I saw a similar (probably the same) ad in the current Flying magazine/shill. Pretty rich, huh? :rolleyes:

Take a good look at the pictures of the guy. You get the impression they were taking pics of him at each juncture of his training. Look closely and he's wearing the same uniform and stripes in each pic; in fact, close examination of him in the CRJ pic reveals that it is an enlargement of him standing next to the 152!!

I say "shill" because Flying runs articles on its advertisers. Three or four months ago it ran an article on TAB Express as well as running TAB's insipid "the airlines are hiring again" ad. As someone who worked in radio news for a number of years, such pandering to an advertiser makes me ill. I realize that this is not the Magazine Journalism board.

I remember Comair P-F-T from ten years ago. It and FSI P-F-T started at about the same time. I understand that Comair did away with the program only a few years ago.

I second Enigma's comments.
 
Was there not once a Grand Canyon operator who allowed one to act as a required crewmwmber for a fee? I seem to remember that.

I'm not sure that Gulfstream's "program" and the PFT in its classical sense is a valid comparison. With regard to "pure" PFT, let's not forget that it was the regional airlines who started it and that FSI was a co-conspirator.

I read a post years back from a guy who elected to PFT. This was back when nearly every regional was PFT and that was the only avenue into an airline seat for a young aspiring pilot. He put it into a different perspective.

He was a flight instructor by day and a stock room grunt by night. By taking out a loan for the PFT, he was able to make the same $$ as a regional FO as he was working the other two jobs, less the loan payment and without having to work two jobs.

He was not a silver spoon type, he just made an economic decision based upon the alternatives available to him at that time. For him it was the right decision. To others, it made him a "working girl".

There is a parallel between classic PFT and the ongoing strife between the WO regionals and the contractors. Do we vilify the pilots? Or the management that sets the rules the pilots must follow?
 
Last edited:
P-F-T

Originally posted by Brother Francis With regard to "pure" PFT, let's not forget that it was the regional airlines who started it and that FSI was a co-conspirator.

I read a post years back from a guy who elected to PFT. This was back when nearly every regional was PFT and that was the only avenue into an airline seat for a young aspiring pilot . . .
(emphasis added)

That was my case twelve years ago, except that I wasn't so young. I was a career changer and was 40. Career changing wasn't in vogue back then. I had already been interviewed and rejected by non-PFT regionals. I met the quals at these regionals. I worked hard to build my hours and ratings. So, for someone to tell me that I would have to buy my way in was outrageous. Notwithstanding my realization that others, and especially my peers, would know that my checkbook got me my "job." In other words, I could hear people say that I was hired only because I paid for it. Never mind the potential fraud and scam implications of depositing a large sum of money to a company in advance of beginning training and wondering if you would be washed out, no matter how well you did, and losing that money.
Do we vilify the pilots? Or the management that sets the rules the pilots must follow?
If you're going to vilify anyone, vilify both. Vilify management. It tempts pilots via P-F-T. Most P-F-T programs allow pilots who don't quite meet normal requirements to cut in front of those who do by means of their money. That is not fair. Everyone should be considered equally and without regard to P-F-T ability.

Historically, airline management has found one way or another to take advantage of pilots. Alter-ego airlines. "B" scales. Bankruptcies, which negate union contracts. P-F-T is just another chapter of that story.
 
PFT is an operator cutting cost by taking advantage of people and using them to subsidize the budjet. Just like a drug dealer and crack cocain as long as there are peopel willing to pay then there will be operators willing to deal. So it is my feeling is that if pilots weren't willing to pay then there would be no PFT. The same goes for drugs, prostitution and all the other vices that plague our society. Ex: if nobody tipped the stripper how long do you think they would be around????????
 
TurboS7 said:
PFT is an operator cutting cost by taking advantage of people and using them to subsidize the budjet . . . So it is my feeling is that if pilots weren't willing to pay then there would be no PFT.
There you go. Couldn't say it better myself.
 
Brother Francis said:

Do we vilify the pilots? Or the management that sets the rules the pilots must follow?

Contrary to the logic of people like Chief "we have the rifle in custody" Moose, it IS appropriate to blame the responsible person. Not one person who bought a job did so because FSI, etc, shanghi-ed them. They all made a unforced, conscious decision to pay for the position. Without the presence of such gullible persons, PFT would have died the same quick death that any other product with no demand dies. It is our fault, not managment. There are plenty of other things to blame management for. :-)

I forgive the PFT'rs, except for the ones who continually attempt to show us all that they were justified, because most of them were fooled/misled. This is a very small community and getting valid information is just about impossible. Especially before the advent of the internet. The slick advertising, and misleading statements of people such as AirInc/FAPA/FSI/etc, fooled people into thinking that buying a job was the same as buying their commercial multi. Without a ready source of truth to refute those people, PFT flourished. I truly believe that most who bought a job did so without realizing that the FAA required the airlines to provide the training whether the newbie paid for it or not.

So, I forgive them.

However, I am willing to invest my valuable time responding to this issue. I do so not to demonize those who made mistakes, but to educate others so that they don't make the same mistake.

regards,
8N
 
The company I fly for makes the new hires sign a three year agreement to hang around. If you leave early then the agreement states that you may "buy yourself out". While you are in training you are paid, that is not PFT. PFT is I have 20K put me in a seat and I will pay for all the cost.
 
Originally posted by enigma I forgive the PFT'rs, except for the ones who continually attempt to show us all that they were justified, because most of them were fooled/misled. This is a very small community and getting valid information is just about impossible. Especially before the advent of the internet. The slick advertising, and misleading statements of people such as AirInc/FAPA/FSI/etc, fooled people into thinking that buying a job was the same as buying their commercial multi. Without a ready source of truth to refute those people, PFT flourished. I truly believe that most who bought a job did so without realizing that the FAA required the airlines to provide the training whether the newbie paid for it or not.
(emphasis added)

Very perceptive comments, Mr. 8N.

I wish there would have been internet twelve years ago (I know there was; it just wasn't available to the public at large). So many pilots make important life and career-altering decisions on the basis of rumor, speculation and incomplete and/or inaccurate information. In those days, factual information was virtually impossible to come by. I am sure pilots still make important life and career-altering decisions on the basis of rumor, speculation and incomplete and/or inaccurate information, but with information more readily available and such things as internet aviation message boards to discuss these matters and get opinions, it should be easier to make an informed decision.

Also, what's done is done. You cannot unring the bell. But, we can at least give those who consider P-F-T or pay-for-interview, etc., some food for thought.
 
For the record

I was not PFT, nor am I a defender of same.

The post to which I referred pointed out the individual's reported decision and his reasoning. I was neither judging or defending.

I do not disagree that PFT was a scourge and it had the effect of undermining the hard work and trials we all went through to get where we are.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top