Originally Posted by
Roper92
How on earth is training required to perform a job to serve an employer in any way similar to a loan?
Whomever said that it is? Certainly not me.
One method used to secure the cost of training is a loan; how it's done varies. Some employers advance the cost or deduct it from paychecks, others require the employee to cosign a loan. Training is not similar to a loan, but similarity is not relevant. We're not discussing similarity here. The employer incurs a cost in training, and expects that the person receiving that training will remain for a period of time. The employer asks the employee to enter into an agreement to remain. If the employee remains for the agreed period of time, no problem. If the employee terminates the contract early, then the employee bears some of the cost of the training. This is an upfront agreement into which the employee not forced to enter.
Whether a loan is similar or not to training has nothing to do with anything. It's not supposed to be "similar." It's a financial issue. The training is expensive. The employee is asked to give a minimum term of service upon receiving that training, or is allowed to leave prior to that term if he or she bears a portion of the cost of that training. Some employers cosign a loan with the employee, making the employee financially party and liable to the costs of the training.
Originally Posted by
Roper92
Training is not a gift. Yeah you could argue that it makes your prospective employee more marketable, but it's required in order for you to utilize your employee.
Also irrelevant. Gift or not, the training is expensive. You can argue whatever you like, but a type rating has considerable value. Go buy your own GV rating and tell me it doesn't. Given that many employers will not hire you without your already being typed, either you pay for it yourself or get someone else to pay for it. If someone else pays for it, you're getting a very big enhancement to your professional qualification that opens the door to you at other employers.
If employer A hires you but doesn't pay as much as employer B, then so be it. This does not justify taking the training at employer A, then running to employer B. If you agree to work for employer A for a period of time because you want the job and because you want the type rating, then have the honor to fulfill your obligation to employe A. If you don't want to do that, then don't take the job. Go see if employer B will hire you.
Much of the time, employer B wants that type rating. Your ability to go get hired by employer B comes from getting the type rating at Employer A.
Originally Posted by
Roper92
If your employees are leaving one after another, maybe the employer should look at themselves and ask what they can do to retain their employees. Usually better compensation, benefits, schedule, safety culture, quality of life on and off the job will do the trick. I understand protecting your investment and I understand honoring your word, but locking people into training contracts because it is the only way you can get people to stick around screams bottom feeder operation to me.
Bottom feeder? I worked for a very good charter operator that sent pilots through Flight Safety for a type rating on one of several aircraft. Their pay was not as great as others, but they were well established. They had very good maintenance, and good equipment. We had seven pilots in a row, each a military aviator, who came aboard with a handshake and an agreement to remain with the company for 12 months following being typed. We didn't use a training bond. No contract. No loan. No money up front. No paycheck deductions or reimbursements. No signature.
Each of those aviators, supposedly men of honor in uniform, took the money and ran. Seven in a row. One got a job closer to home. Another hired on with another operator while still at Flight Safety, before the type was even complete. Another grabbed the promise of an instant upgrade, and so forth. Seven in a row. No skin off their nose. They were accustomed to the training being given them. Taxpayers gave it, and now my employer gave it. Nothing new. They checked another box and made their move, leaving the employer stuck with the cost of their training, and no employee to do the work.
The cost of training isn't just the cost of training, however, when it comes to replacing an employee. The cost of recruiting, lost trips, and the overall cost of replacement, including background checks and other administrative expenses, is considerably more.
Guess what the company did after the seventh welcher bailed dishonorably? If you guessed instituted a training contract, you'd be right.
If you seek employment with a company that has a training contract, then fill the term of the contract or pay the price. Don't expect that simply because your interest in the job has faded, so has your financial obligation. If you don't want to sign the contract, if you don't want to incur that obligation, then DON'T TAKE THE JOB! Is that so complicated?
I find training contracts and bonds to be quite distasteful. They exist, however, due to the dishonor of those who have come before, who were quite willing to wet the bed in which everyone lay, all for their own selfish interests. This is the fallout.