Help with a training contract
 

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

I fell into the training contract trap myself. I signed a one sided agreement for one year to cover the "costs" of my training in a sh@t box 402b freighter. After 8 months or so I lost my medical, during which time they sent me a letter of termination. Six weeks later when I got my medical back and went to work for a different (much better) operator, I received several letters from their attorney demanding payment of the contract. I knew the law well enough to know they had no case, as it was a right to work state. So I threw the letters in the trash and never heard another word about it. They knew they had no case.

The only other contract I ever signed was a company that payed for my first type rating. I made sure to cross out any sections I didn't agree with and also added an addendum that stated if I was terminated for any reason other than gross misconduct that the contract would be null and void. They had their lawyer look over my revisions and accepted it, then paid for a full Gulfstream type for me. Don't be afraid to make changes to these contracts, and don't sign anything that you wouldn't or couldn't comply with in the worst possible circumstances. That's my advice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree with most of your statements, particularly that companies should shoulder the cost of training pilots and contracts are a sign of poor faith on their part, generally speaking. The over-abundance of naive pilot labor in this country has made the exploitation of entry level pilots easy and profitable, and it continues as we speak.

However I think you are dead wrong that right to work states somehow nullifies a training contract with an employee there. Unless the contract says in it that termination by the employer nullifies the contract, it most certainly is binding in some/ many states and it is enforceable under some/ many state laws. States may vary in how they treat these contracts, the issue is not really debatable here therefore, but to make a blanket statement that if the state is a right to work state then a contract is valid because of that, is not correct and could lead a serious and costly mistake on the part of an applicant pilot.

Signing a training contact is serious business and not to be taken lightly. These contracts are for a lot of money and are both enforceable and enforced in many cases. Good faith in the beginning does not equate to an easy way out in the end. If you "skipped out" (employer's viewpoint) on a training contract and did not later hear from the courts, then consider yourself lucky. This is why I urge pilots to think hard about plan B when it comes to signing these contacts. At the very least take a copy and talk it over with a lawyer first. At the very most, never sign one.

We also have had a lot of threads here on this, use the search window at the upper right to locate them.

Yes. You signed the contract. Now you want out. Your responsibility.

You indicated that it's a one year contract. If htis is the case, then the fact that it's been six months is irrelevant unless the agreement is prorated, or has a clause indicating that you must remain the full 12 months for any relief.

You indicated that you felt the contract was improper, yet you elected to enter into the contract anyway. I'm not sure what it is that you think you're saying, but what you're actually saying is that you entered into the contract. Whether you thought it was legitimate or not is irrelevant. You say you signed it to get what you wanted. You did get what you wanted (the job). Why do you feel that simply because you don't want it any more, you aren't or shouldn't be beholden to the terms to which you agreed?

Whether a type rating was received or not is irrelevant (unless one of the terms of the contract was receipt of a type rating). You appear to be intimating that you don't think you got much out of the contract (except for the job...the reason you signed the contract), and therefore you think you shouldn't be beholden to the agreement.

Simply because you didn't get typed, it's been six months, and you once thought the contract was "bogus" doesn't negate the fact that you signed for it, it's been less than 12 months, and you did get the job.

Now, what are you really trying to say?

Right to work doesn't negate a training agreement, any more than it negates a work contract between a labor group and an employer.

Under right to work doctrine, either the employer or the employee may sever the work relationship at any time. The Employer is not required or bound to keep the employee employed. The employee is not required or bound to stay with the employer. That does not change an agreement to pay for training received. Right to work impacts the ability to stay employed or separate, but not other contractual obligations entered into between the employer and employee.

An example would be a loan taken out by the employee from the employer. If the employee signs an agreement to pay back a pay advance, but elects to leave the employer before that money is repaid, then the money doesn't simply become a gift from the employer. The now-ex-employee must still repay the money. Likewise, if the employee has agreed to a value of money for training, separation of employment (termination or resignation) doesn't negate the obligation on the part of the employee.

Don't confuse right to work with a financial agreement between employer and employee. Right to work means neither party is obligated to retain/work for the other. A training bond or agreement is different; it's a contract to pay for training received, and prescribes penalties for failure to abide the contract. That may be a prorated cost of training, a joint signature loan, or other means of financing training under which the employee/ex-employee is obligated for all or part.

If you sign the agreement, you're picking up one end of the stick. Pick up one end of the stick, and you pick up the other.

Question, how is that training "paid for" if the employee abides by the contract and does not terminate his work? Is it "paid for" by him performing his services for the company?

I agree with this post 100%. I just wish more young pilots realized what they are getting into with these damned training contracts. They simply do not realize it is just like buying a car or a house- you absolutely WILL hear from the company law firm if you wig out on the contract, and in some cases you will even hear from a company law firm about paying up even when you were let go for no reason of your own. It is serious business, and contract lawyers do not play around with contract lawsuits. The way to deal with these contracts is to talk to your lawyer before you sign one, and avoid signing one altogether.

I've seen two instances where a situation like this has shown up in a PRIA. Not good.

That depends on the terms of the contract. Such contracts and bonds shouldn't be necessary at all, but pilots at large tend to be a dishonorable lot; I've worked places where seven pilots in a row took the type rating then ran to another employer for a few dollars more, or to be closer to home. Such individuals were the root cause of these training contracts in the first place.

Some training contracts set a monetary amount which is owed at the outset. The contract is prorated so that every month the employee owes less if he or she leaves. A 12,000 dollar 6 month agreement, for example, means that if the employee takes the training and runs, he owes the full twelve grand. After a month, he owes ten grand. After two months he owes eight grand, and so on.

I've seen other arrangements in which the employer cosigns a loan taken out by the employee; every month the employer pays the loan off in increments. If the employee leaves, the employee is stuck with the loan.

In other cases, the loan, or bond, or agreement is adjusted against a paycheck, and in still others, the individual pays for it up front, and is gradually reimbursed.

The purpose in every case is to provide strong financial incentive to honor an arrangement.

I do not like such arrangements, and abhor those who seek payment up front from a potential employee. One who pays for a job isn't really an employee; more of a hobbyist. Unfortunately, training bonds, agreements, and various arrangements won't be going anywhere soon, largely due to the dishonor of those who take the training and run.

This thread is a great example of that. The poster unabashedly tells us that he simply signed the agreement to get what he wanted. Having got it, his concern is not how to honor his obligations, but how to get out of them scott free.

"I didn't think I'd really have to pay it back" isn't really a legitimate excuse to get out of one's legal debt.

In the last few of years I have come to understand exactly how new aviators have ruined not only the entry level Part 91 and 135 jobs in this country, they have also ruined the regional airline market for entry-level airline pilots. This group comes along willing to work for a chance to fly and the hope of a big airline career, and they willingly accept any kind of treatment and pay in the process. Low end airlines take advantage of this exact mentality and over time quality of life and pay goes to hell, which is where the entire industry is today. The nature of the job is that it caters to the exploitation of dreamers, and the domestic entry level pilot is not the kind of person who puts facts ahead of some flung hopes they cling to. These onerous training contracts are symptomatic of the same thing- workers applying to jobs to support some vision of grandeur without much (any) regard for the actual position they have to take to get there. The main message I echo here is therefore that one should apply to and accept a job because they want that job, period, not some other job that comes later. Only when this mentality prevails among entry level pilots in this country will the actual work life for all pilots improve.

Lots of good points here..... to me it goes back to the statement..."how good is your word".... telling someone to sign a contract because "its not enforceable anyways".... is just wrong. Not going to argue the pro's con's of a training contract. For me, it is as simple as this... you sign the contract.. generally these contracts agree that you will receive some sort of training paid for by the company and in return you are agreeing to stay at that company for a set period of time. Now... if you want to leave early you have two choices ... pay off the contract or fight it. Fighting it says to me that you are not willing to live up to the agreements you have made. Caveat.. there are always circumstances beyond one's control, in that case still... its a matter of paying your debts. NO need to flame I am sure there are plenty who don't agree with my thoughts ....thats fine.