Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I was there a short time, I can tell you that they have no legal basis to enforce that "training contract". I never paid a cent, btw they only go after the suckers willing to pay. they never want it to go to court due to the fact that it is an illegal concept, and they would then subject themselves to a class action by all of those who did actually pay. Remember, federal labor law does not allow companies to charge employees for training received that is required for them to perform their job. If they offered college courses and had a training contract and these courses were outside of your normal job description, then yes you do have an obligation to pay it back.
This dead horse has been beaten thoroughly, why do people still ask about illegal training contracts? This is the only industry that has so many suckers willing to pay to work. BTW, Miami Air, is what it is, 36th Street, Miami. Take it for what its worth.
Since then, such agreements have become commonplace in the public sector. In 2004, Congress enacted legislation specifically requiring so-called "continued service agreements" from government employees who receive extended training. Such contracts obligate the employees to work for at least three times the training period or face suit for recovery of the training costs.2 Similar agreements are also widely used by state and local government for police and other highly trained personnel. In 2006, the City of Los Angeles made headlines by filing suit seeking to recover 1.6 million dollars in training costs from 53 officers who had agreed to repay them if they left the police department before completing a five-year service commitment.3
In the private sector, reliance upon such agreements also has expanded. Such agreements continue to be widely used by airlines4 and securities brokers,5 whose training costs can be quite high, and also in other [COLOR=#336699 !important][COLOR=#336699 !important]industries[/COLOR][/COLOR], such as accounting6, information technology,7 and trucking.8
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-government/11805714-1.html
I love how we have so many lawyers that are willing to give free advice about contract law.
You specifically quote my statement regarding training contracts, but your rebuttal quotes a news article on government contracts? How do some of you fly airplanes, much less drive a car? I am an ex military and government employee, I am well aware of government training obligations, Miami Air is not the government. I also have a lawyer who specializes in labor issues due to my business I own, I did consult him. Aviation, specifically pilots seem susceptible to this scam, I know of no other private sector industry that gets away with this crap, but pilots like you are the reason they continue to try.
Here you go KSU Aviator, quote factual information pertaining to the subject:
Pilot wins lawsuit against Bombardier Flexjet
Firm used deceptive practices, jury finds
12:00 AM CST on Saturday, February 9, 2008
By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]
A Dallas jury has found Bombardier Flexjet's contract with a former pilot unenforceable, saying the Richardson-based private jet company used deceptive practices in promising pilots promotions and training.
Flexjet, which sells private jet service, sued Allen Miller of Plano in October 2005 for failing to repay a portion of his training costs after he flew for the company for 17 months starting in April 2000. The pilots' contract stated that pilots who left the company before working 24 months would repay a portion of their training costs, or $5,280 in Mr. Miller's case.
Mr. Miller, 52, countersued, arguing that Flexjet had falsely promised rapid promotions for new pilots and training that would help them get their official rating quickly on various types of corporate jets.
"These promises turned out to be lies," he said, especially the part about becoming a captain and earning more than $50,000 a year, well above the initial pay of $32,000 a year. "We were cheap labor to them."
In an interview, Mr. Miller said he thought it was particularly deceptive that the company emphasized to its customers that for safety reasons both captain and co-pilot would be fully rated on the planes flown. "I flew their planes for 17 months without my type rating," he said.
Calls for comment to Flexjet's spokeswoman and Jones & Davis attorney Chad Berry, who represented Flexjet in the case, weren't returned Friday.
The jury returned its verdict Monday, finding that the contract was invalid and that Flexjet had used deceptive trade practices, said Rob Wiley, attorney for Mr. Miller.
However, the jury awarded Mr. Miller no damages in his countersuit against Flexjet, and he probably will have to bear his own legal costs.
Mr. Miller estimated his legal expenses were about $70,000, but he believes he's among the very first pilots to successfully challenge Flexjet's pilot contract.
"It was a real education for me," he said.
Flexjet's Richardson operations employed 809 people last year, according to information from the company.
Mr. Miller now flies for Netjets Inc. of Woodbridge, N.J., which is owned by Berkshire-Hathway Inc.