Originally Posted by
Joepilot84
Main question is whether or not the company was in a right to work state. Training contracts are not legally enforceable in right to work states, as either party has the legal right to terminate employment at any time. That doesn't mean they won't have an attorney draft a letter to bully you into paying. They may even file suit to pressure you into paying, but it would be thrown out in court.
The way I look at it is training pilots is a part of doing business, and should be shouldered entirely by the employer. Employee retention is a separate matter entirely and is based on a number of factors, most of which are controlled by the employer, although there are exceptions. Training contracts are an immoral method of shifting operating costs to the employee, and seem to be used extensively by unscrupulous operators that have an attorney on retainer already to protect themselves in their other shady dealings.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This is not correct, not even close. As others have pointed out, there is a difference between a contractual employment agreement and what is considered a "right to work" state. The misnomer "right to work" stems from the Taft-Hartley Act (1947) which was enacted to prevent agreements between companies and unions
coercing employees, as a condition of continued employment, to become members of a trade union (and therefore pay dues). There are variations among the states on the level of prohibition on the requirements of union membership and dues mandated. None of these, however, interfere with the basic Constitutional right of "freedom to contract." A contract can be formed between consenting parties on just about any conceivable subject, provided it does not violate public policy or any laws (also cannot be unconscionable). Also required is a benefit to both sides with mutual voluntary consent.