I've been following along with the thread on the fractional forum on this site about the netjets "bad santa." This thread interested me, because I had a conversation with the CEO of a rapidly growing fractional operator recently, in which the subject came up. The CEO just instituted a rather stiff training contract for new pilots; something that hasn't been in the works before. The company is requiring a promisory note to remain employed for a year, with a stiff financial penalty for those who fail to do so.
I read his document, and commented that I saw nothing in it about pro-rating the pilots time with the company. He indicated that indeed the company would take that into consideration. I re-read the contract, and found nothing to indicate that to be the case.
I then asked him about several hypothetical situations in which a pilot might leave due to illness, injury, valid concerns or complaint, and finally, at company request. The contract included wording to the effect that should the pilot no longer be employable as a pilot for any reason, the company still has the option of requiring twelve months service, to include employment in another capacity.
My question to him was what to do about an employee leaving. Is he really going to expect a pilot to repay that amount.
His candid response to me was that this was a new policy, that the company hasn't had a problem with pilots jumping ship, and sincerely hopes to keep it that way. He stated that he couldn't afford to risk enforcing the contract, because of the negative publicity it might cause. In essence, the paper contract is just that; it has legal teeth, but the reprocussions of enforcing it, from his point of view, would be unacceptable.
This was a one-on-one conversation that didn't put he or I in the hot seat. How it might bear out in an adversarial situation, real time for a pilot who has signed the contract and then leaves, I don't know. I found his candid admission to be enlightening, however. I don't know the man well, but from our meeting, I would surmise that he means what he says.
Personally, I've never had to sign one of those contracts in the past. I've worked for employers that had them, but I've always managed to get by with a handshake. For me, it's a lot more binding than any contract, and it means a lot more to me. A man signs a paper to me, or me to him, it's paper. I honor my obligations...but a handshake is personal and it's a matter of honor.
The same should be said for an employment contract. When I have taken training in the past, regardless of weather it was type training or not, I've been prepared for what I consider a standard fair stay; a year of service. I've turned down some career-enhancing employment and some lucrative offers in the past because my moral obligation to remain and not leave an employer high and dry was too strong to permit me to walk out. In each case, I've told the employer who is making the offer that "I wouldn't do it to you, and I can't do it to them."
In almost every case, the inviting employer has told me that they appreciate that as a valueable quality in an employee; it certainly is to me. I've had a few who were flexible enough to work with me, for which I've been grateful, and a lot more that I lost because of a refusal to break my bond. I've known a lot of pilots who have taken the money and run, and those individuals to me are unethical, and lack honor and integrity. Their actions speak loudly about their character.
Training contract or not, the signatures on the paper are only as worthy as the hands that sign them.
