Excargodog

Actually, it would make sense. Clearly they wouldn’t be doing that to get the OP back, as that likely would not be cost effective. But they probably have a hundred other FOs who have signed the same agreement. It’s sort of like a military firing squad, where you don’t actually expect to change the motivation of the guy you are shooting because he’s gonna be dead anyway, but it’s more just ‘pour encourager les autres’. By hammering the OP management can make it less likely the 99 remaining guys fail to honor THEIR contract.


Might? It almost certainly would. And Air Whiskey would be under no obligation to NOT tell every major out there you reneged on your contract since it would be an entirely truthful statement. Moreover, they almost certainly WOULD do that, for the same reason as above. Not simply to get at the OP but to send a message to the others who signed the same agreement.

pitchtrim

Completely agree.

Signed a contract and now you must honor it. Had options of deference in the beginning but chose otherwise. Now doesn't want to take responsibility.

tallow

State law or contract language cannot violate US Law. In that case they are unenforceable.

Thirteenth Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

When you sign the contract for your training an indenture is created for the period of time specified in the contract. This kind of contract was made illegal by the Thirteenth Amendment. That is why no airline has ever tried to take someone to court over this because they have good attorneys that know it is ultimately unenforceable.

So, moral issues aside, they can't force repayment through legal means. Now, they can report it as a bad debt, they can constantly harass you according to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and future employers may look unfavorably on it if they pull your credit report or you tell them what you did. But, they can't force you to pay it back.

Soxfan1

I’d buy this argument more if taking the bonus was a mandatory requirement for employment. It is not. You can opt out completely or you can defer it until it fully vests.

I’d also buy this argument more if the company wasn’t allowing you to leave before 2 years at all. But you are free to go, and paying or not paying back the bonus is entirely up to what you decided to do day 1.

Let me ask a question. Some companies give employees free uniforms upfront but if you leave in certain amount of time you must then pay for them. And then they payroll deduct your last check to get their money back. Are you saying because you received something of value upfront that has a time requirement to it that this practice is illegal too?

flightlessbirds

+1 Absolutely. You chose to take the money before it was vested. You have a responsibility to pay it back if you don't meet your end of this contract for the voluntary bonus.

If you don't want to have to pay the bonus money back, you sign to defer until it is vested.

Soxfan1

One more thing...

The OP has a total of one post ever, the one that started this thread. They have not engaged once since this thread started. I do not believe this to be legitimate and we are all wasting our time continuing to answer their question. I am just as guilty of that as well.

I say we let this thread die...

tallow

The indenture is created when you sign the contract and take the money. Any other options are irrelevant. Its about the contract and the indenture.

JasonR

Disclaimer: edits in quoted text for emphasis.

Nobody is forcing anyone to sign the contract throughout this discussion, therefore there is nothing involuntary. The 13th amendment does not apply.

Disclaimer: not an attorney, but I did study constitutional law in the police academy.

tallow

The uniform purchase would fall under property law because it is property, not labor. And in that case the company is well within its rights to recover property or monies to cover property taken. The labor contract falls under labor law.

This is about the indentured contract, not anything else. Once the contract is taken out any other options will be irrelevant to the court. And indentured contracts are illegal under US law. That is why the attorney told the OP that its not enforceable, as any good labor lawyer will tell you. And, I guarantee, Air Wiskey knows this, they are just trying to recover as much as they can like any good business. I guarantee if you talk to them they will settle for less just to clear their books.

tallow

Yes it does. Involuntary or indentured servitude is where people may CHOOSE to take a service in exchange for their labors for a period of time. The best example of this was when people would become indentured servants to pay for the cost of their passage to the New World from Europe.