|
Air Wisconsin Bonus Repayment - legitimate?
Air Wisconsin demands bonus repayments from pilots who do not stay on the job for two years. When I left before the two years were up, they billed me for the repayment. I asked the company to tell me why they thought I owed the repayment, but I never received a reply to my numerous letters or phone calls - they just kept billing me for it. I spoke to an attorney who told me the company's demand is baseless, and that I do not owe the repayment. Has anyone repaid their bonus(es) and, if so, why did you think you owed the repayment?
|
The bonus earning schedule is clearly stated during week 1 or 2 of INDOC along with the deferral option.
If you don’t plan to stay two years or pay back bonus money you should defer the money until it is earned. Think of the bonus money as a pay advance that is earned/vested primarily between month 13 and 24. |
To answer your final question, it’s because it’s in the contract you signed when hired. You aren’t entitled to anything here and you are stealing from the company.
Aside from that, this whole post reads as if it’s coming from a lifer who wants new hires to screw the company. |
Originally Posted by blatav
(Post 2940043)
Air Wisconsin demands bonus repayments from pilots who do not stay on the job for two years. When I left before the two years were up, they billed me for the repayment. I asked the company to tell me why they thought I owed the repayment, but I never received a reply to my numerous letters or phone calls - they just kept billing me for it. I spoke to an attorney who told me the company's demand is baseless, and that I do not owe the repayment. Has anyone repaid their bonus(es) and, if so, why did you think you owed the repayment?
Now that said - is that (electronic signature) legally binding? Would a signed contract even be? No clue. But my guess is that is the leg the company is standing on with this. “We told you, in advance of accepting the bonus, and you signed electronically, that you were aware of policy and then we paid you bonus. So we want our money back”. Again, I’m not saying I agree or not. And it maybe worth a legal challenge. But at the time I was hired and accepted the bonus, I was aware of the policy and acknowledged it, so it’s hard for me to claim ignorance. The bonus amount has morphed a few times so I also can’t say if each version over the years has done things differently but mine was one of the first versions so if they were documenting it back then - I’d guess they still are. |
The reason why a good attorney will tell you that the claim is baseless is indentured servitude was made illegal in this country about 150 years age. However they can continue to harass you and treat this as a bad debt and put it on your credit report. But if it ever sees a court they will lose, quickly, and they know that.
|
Originally Posted by tallow
(Post 2945219)
The reason why a good attorney will tell you that the claim is baseless is indentured servitude was made illegal in this country about 150 years age. However they can continue to harass you and treat this as a bad debt and put it on your credit report. But if it ever sees a court they will lose, quickly, and they know that.
A signing bonuses or sign-on bonus is incentive pay offered by an employer to encourage a new employee to join the employer's workforce. A signing bonus is offered to incentivize a skilled employee to work for a company or to encourage the employee to stay with the company for an extended period of time. In the latter example, an employer will usually make a bonus offer based on the employee agreeing to remain with the employer for a set period of time. A sign-on bonus occasionally comes with conditions attached. If the employee signs a repayment agreement stating that they agree to return all bonus monies if separated from employment before a certain date, that employee would likely have to return the money if they decide to leave before that date. The Court may consider the sign-on bonus and agreement a valid contract, and may enforce it against an employee who leaves early and does not return the money, considering the employee's action to be a breach of the agreement. So, if an employee agrees to the terms when he took the job and the signing bonus, signed a repayment agreement, and then decided to take an action in violation of the contract, he would be expected to repay the incentive monies received. However, without a repayment agreement, the employee will not be expected to repay the signing bonus, regardless of when he separates from employment |
Put yourself in the shoes of your future dream employer. You have a candidate who left a company and walked away from a signed agreement, then threatened legal action to avoid paying it back. Would you hire said person?
Is it likely that they’d know you that you did that? Probably not, but I guarantee it would destroy your chances if it did, so why not just pay back what you owe? |
Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon
(Post 2945230)
Put yourself in the shoes of your future dream employer. You have a candidate who left a company and walked away from a signed agreement, then threatened legal action to avoid paying it back. Would you hire said person?
Is it likely that they’d know you that you did that? Probably not, but I guarantee it would destroy your chances if it did, so why not just pay back what you owe? 1. Take full bonus upfront/pay it back if you leave early (prorated possibly). 2. Defer bonus till it fully vests/don’t pay it back if you leave early. 3. Don’t take a dime/leave when you want. It’s not mandatory to do option 1, so claiming indentured servitude would be countered by the fact you simply could have picked options 2 or 3 but didn’t. Taking bonus and taking the job are not one in the same. You can say no to bonus. Or defer it. Or take it all. It’s your choice but there are repercussions to each. |
I guess I’m old school? Repay what you agreed to or remain at the company for two full years until your obligation is complete. This reminds me of government debt forgiveness that people everywhere are whining about that they got denied. Pay what you owe/fulfill your obligation. It’s a moral duty. You’ll have accomplished something you said that you would and feel good about it and will have nothing to worry about.
|
Assuming the company found the electronically signed contract, they would then need to file in court to come after the money. At minimum, that would be 10-20K for lawyers to be retained, have you served papers, file, etc. I don't think they will go through the legal system to recover. Someone mentioned you suing them, but that would make no sense with lawyer fees, chance of losing, paying their fees, etc. The only person that wins with a lawsuit are the attorneys.
If you don't pay them back, expect to get letters, marks on credit report, etc.. As others have said, having an unpaid debt to Air Wisconsin when a future employer pulls your credit report might just eliminate you from consideration with no chance to explain. |
Originally Posted by loganeich
(Post 2945250)
Assuming the company found the electronically signed contract, they would then need to file in court to come after the money. At minimum, that would be 10-20K for lawyers to be retained, have you served papers, file, etc. I don't think they will go through the legal system to recover. Someone mentioned you suing them, but that would make no sense with lawyer fees, chance of losing, paying their fees, etc.
If you don't pay them back, expect to get letters, marks on credit report, etc.. As others have said, having an unpaid debt to Air Wisconsin when a future employer pulls your credit report might just eliminate you from consideration with no chance to explain. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 2945330)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 2945225)
Indentured servitude? Maybe. But contracts (depending on law in the states they are made in) definitely can be enforceable.
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. |
Originally Posted by tallow
(Post 2945362)
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. 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? |
Originally Posted by Soxfan1
(Post 2945372)
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? If you don't want to have to pay the bonus money back, you sign to defer until it is vested. |
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... |
Originally Posted by Soxfan1
(Post 2945245)
Exactly this. You had/have three options:
1. Take full bonus upfront/pay it back if you leave early (prorated possibly). 2. Defer bonus till it fully vests/don’t pay it back if you leave early. 3. Don’t take a dime/leave when you want. It’s not mandatory to do option 1, so claiming indentured servitude would be countered by the fact you simply could have picked options 2 or 3 but didn’t. Taking bonus and taking the job are not one in the same. You can say no to bonus. Or defer it. Or take it all. It’s your choice but there are repercussions to each. |
Originally Posted by tallow
(Post 2945362)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by Soxfan1
(Post 2945372)
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? 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. |
Originally Posted by JasonR
(Post 2945393)
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. |
Originally Posted by tallow
(Post 2945401)
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.
You might want to read some case law about this before embarrassing yourself more with your opinions. Most training contracts. And almost all hiring bonus payback clauses, are totally enforceable. |
Originally Posted by dera
(Post 2945434)
You are so wrong it's not even funny.
You might want to read some case law about this before embarrassing yourself more with your opinions. Maybe this link will help 🤷🏼*♂️ http://https://www.dictionary.com/browse/involuntary Edited to make link work. |
Originally Posted by tallow
(Post 2945362)
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. Nonsense. Just ask any NBA or NFL player about that. Ask any general contractor. It is ENTIRELY legal to commit yourself to work for a given period of time by voluntarily entering into a contract, even through just taking a signing bonus. |
So they are giving you money you haven't earned? Sounds like a loan.
Why did they count a loan as income? When I get a mortgage, that's not income. |
OF COURSE A SIGNING BONUS CLAWBACK IS LEGAL.
The Seattle Seahawks sued former defensive linemen Malik McDowell, alleging that their former draft pick failed to pay back nearly $800,000 of a signing bonus. According to the Detroit News, the suit was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan on Wednesday. The Seahawks drafted McDowell in the second round of the 2017 NFL draft, but the former Michigan State product never played for the team. McDowell was injured in an ATV accident in July 2017 and has yet to see action on the field after the Seahawks waived him with a non-football injury designation. An arbitrator ruled in February 2019 that McDowell breached his contract after being injured away from the football and that he had to forfeit his signing bonus of nearly $1.6 million. The Seahawks withheld payment of $800,000 for the 2018 season, Dick’s Sues Former CTO Over Signing Bonus Posted by SGB Media | Oct 24, 2019 | SGB Updates, Update Dick’s Sporting Goods has filed a lawsuit against Paul Gaffney, its former chief technology officer who joined Kohl’s in September. The lawsuit charges Gaffney owes the company half of the $1.5 million sign-on bonus he received due to his resigning less than two years after being hired. Gaffney was hired in November 2017. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Gaffney’s contract called for Gaffney to refund 100 percent of his $1.5 million sign-on bonus if he left Dick’s within a year after being hired and 50 percent of the bonus if he left within two years The San Francisco 49ers have sued Aldon Smith in order to get back the more than $300,000 in forfeited signing bonuses that the team says is owed to them. According to the complaint (via the Hollywood Reporter) filed Monday in a Northern California district court, Smith was required to pay $1,186,027 of his $8.961,092 signing bonus when the linebacker was suspended for nine games after violating the NFL substance abuse and personal conduct policy in 2014. The 49ers claim Smith, who is now with the Raiders, has only paid them $844,396.82. They are suing to get the outstanding $341,630.18 owed to them. |
Originally Posted by Varsity
(Post 2945525)
So they are giving you money you haven't earned? Sounds like a loan.
Why did they count a loan as income? When I get a mortgage, that's not income. I'll sue my bank tomorrow. |
Originally Posted by dera
(Post 2945434)
You are so wrong it's not even funny.
You might want to read some case law about this before embarrassing yourself more with your opinions. Most training contracts. And almost all hiring bonus payback clauses, are totally enforceable. |
Originally Posted by dera
(Post 2945434)
You are so wrong it's not even funny.
You might want to read some case law about this before embarrassing yourself more with your opinions. Most training contracts. And almost all hiring bonus payback clauses, are totally enforceable. Name one instance where a training contract has ever been enforced by a court. |
Originally Posted by dera
(Post 2945584)
Same logic applies to my mortgage. It is indentured servitude. I HAVE to work to pay it back.
I'll sue my bank tomorrow. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 2945545)
OF COURSE A SIGNING BONUS CLAWBACK IS LEGAL.
It’s an enforceable contract. If it’s a small amount, they may let it go, but anyone who believes the 13th amendment is a bar to a clawback agreement on a signing bonus is simply ignorant. Once again. They can sue you, they can consider it a bad debt and harass you with certain restrictions, hoping you don't know your rights or hire an attorney. Or you can pay it back because you are a good guy. Using attorneys to file questionable lawsuits to threaten and get what you want is business 101. Just ask the Trumpster. However, if it ever sees a courtroom (and it won't) they will lose. |
Originally Posted by tallow
(Post 2945733)
Every one of these clawback lawsuits gets settled out of court and you will never know the terms. Anybody can file a lawsuit against you. Doesn't mean they will win, its a harassment tactic and you must decide if you want to pay a settlement to avoid legal fees to get rid of it or take it to court. Point where a judge in a courtroom has ordered a repayment of a hiring bonus or training contract.
Once again. They can sue you, they can consider it a bad debt and harass you with certain restrictions, hoping you don't know your rights or hire an attorney. Or you can pay it back because you are a good guy. Using attorneys to file questionable lawsuits to threaten and get what you want is business 101. Just ask the Trumpster. However, if it ever sees a courtroom (and it won't) they will lose. Even if you were right - and you aren’t - IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER, because when the Air Whisky HR people are asked by the United or Delta or American Airlines HR people what their experience was with Joe Pilot and they TRUTHFULLY SAY that he ran out and reneged on a contract he signed, Joe Pilot’s chance of getting to the big time has now decreases considerably. So yeah, if you are leaving the industry altogether and only owe $10 grand or so you can probably get away with stiffing them, because lawyer fees and collection costs may exceed what you legally owe, but I sure wouldn’t do that if you haven’t yet got the final job you intend to get in aviation. And even that you are taking the chance that HR doesn’t feel the need to make an example of you ‘pour encourager les autres.’ |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 2945784)
https://i.ibb.co/SxSdqzS/C05-C3706-6...-CC7-CEEBB.jpg
Even if you were right - and you aren’t - IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER, because when the Air Whisky HR people are asked by the United or Delta or American Airlines HR people what their experience was with Joe Pilot and they TRUTHFULLY SAY that he ran out and reneged on a contract he signed, Joe Pilot’s chance of getting to the big time has now decreases considerably. So yeah, if you are leaving the industry altogether and only owe $10 grand or so you can probably get away with stiffing them, because lawyer fees and collection costs may exceed what you legally owe, but I sure wouldn’t do that if you haven’t yet got the final job you intend to get in aviation. And even that you are taking the chance that HR doesn’t feel the need to make an example of you ‘pour encourager les autres.’ However the debt may appear on a credit check so in that case you would have some explaining to do to other employers. |
Originally Posted by tallow
(Post 2945836)
Most of these guys are leaving for the dream job so by the time Air Whiskey figures out what is going on they will already be in class. However when another employer calls all Air Whiskey HR is going to do is give them the PRIA report and confirm dates of hire and position because they aren't interested in exposing themselves to a lawsuit.
However the debt may appear on a credit check so in that case you would have some explaining to do to other employers. |
Originally Posted by pitchtrim
(Post 2945852)
Yeah because no one in this industry gets black listed.
|
Originally Posted by tallow
(Post 2945857)
That is a union deal. Different game because the blacklist doesn't "officially" exist. However there have been lawsuits over blacklists.
Fighting the repayment of a $10,000 signing bonus contract that you signed is as money losing for you as it may be for HR, EXCEPT HR may do it anyway to keep the REST of the newbies from reneging on their contracts. |
Originally Posted by tallow
(Post 2945729)
Point to the case law. It isn't there. Because no good lawyer will let this get in front of a judge.
TL;DR If the training is universal, the skills can be transferred, and can be gained from other sources than solely your employer, then the training contracts are enforceable. Such as, a hiring bonus, or a training contract for your ATP and a type rating. Unless your employer makes promises they do not keep (such as promises a PIC type rating and only provides SIC type). What you'll find out, is that often hiring bonuses are contracted as promissory notes. It is a legal and binding contract, where you promise to perform pilot services for a certain amount of time, and if you fail to do so, you have to pay back what they paid in advance for those said services. Regionals go after pilots for the bonus money all the time, because they are rock solid legally. |
Originally Posted by tallow
(Post 2945730)
Point to the case law. It isn't there. Because no good lawyer will let this get in front of a judge.
Name one instance where a training contract has ever been enforced by a court. |
The district court convened a hearing on the motions. After the hearing, the court entered an order granting Great Lakes' motion and denying Mr. Pittard's motion. The district court found the following facts were undisputed: [Mr. Pittard] completed an online employment application on June 27, 2002. On the application, [Mr. Pittard] answered “Yes” to the question, “Are you willing to sign a training agreement?” Thereafter, on August 5, 2002, and prior to beginning his training with the Company, [Mr. Pittard] was presented with a Pilot Training Agreement (“Agreement”) and a Promissory Note, which [he] signed. According to the terms of the Agreement, [Mr. Pittard] agreed to reimburse [Great Lakes] the stipulated cost of his training ($7,500.00) should he resign, voluntarily terminate his employment, or be discharged at any time during his training or within fifteen (15) months of his actual hire date. [Mr. Pittard] voluntarily resigned his employment with [Great Lakes] on October 21, 2002, 37 days after his hire date. In accordance with the parties' Agreement, [Great Lakes] withheld $1,241.51 from [Mr. Pittard's] final paycheck. [Mr. Pittard] did not challenge this withholding. [Great Lakes] demanded payment of the balance owed, but [Mr. Pittard] refuses to satisfy his breach of the Agreement. [¶ 12] The district court concluded these undisputed facts showed that the parties entered into a valid and binding agreement, and Mr. Pittard breached the agreement. The court ordered Great Lakes to submit a motion for entry of judgment together with affidavits showing the amount due under the agreement and promissory note and an application for attorney's fees and costs. Thereafter, based upon the affidavits, the district court entered judgment awarding Great Lakes $7,225.74, the amount due on the promissory note, plus $6,362.00 for attorney's fees and costs, for a total judgment of $13,587.74. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 2946167)
|
Originally Posted by tallow
(Post 2945362)
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. Maybe you should research the 13th Amendment a little more. Maybe look in a dictionary??? Did you apply to AW and then interview - was that by choice? Did anyone force you to go to work for AW? You weren’t kidnapped and forced into being a pilot? Anyone force you to sign the contract? No...? I didn’t think so! Involuntary servitude is just that - being forced to work against your will. I’m not a lawyer, but I’d bet with my rudimentary knowledge alone I’d win this case against you in court. Airlines have taken people to court and won multiple times for this exact thing! Another example - if you attend military flight training - you incur a commitment for X amount of years. Military doctor has his/her student loans paid for by the government and then are required to stay in military for 10 years... if they choose to leave, they must repay what the government paid. This is all standard practice with tons of case law. If you go to court, you will most likely loose - then be sued for court costs and lawyer fees. I wouldn’t roll the dice. Now, if you were fired, then you shouldn’t have to pay it back. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:28 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands