How on earth is training required to perform a job to serve an employer in any way similar to a loan? 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

The loan is a mechanism to put teeth in a training contract, ie make it enforceable or at least create more consequences for non-compliance.

As to why an employer needs a training contract...99% of the time it's because it's a horrible place to work and nobody would stay. 1% of the time it might be because you're getting a G-V/650 type and the employer has a legit interest in some ROI on that very expensive and marketable type.

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.

You are incorrect. Look at the precedent setting case of flex jet, the court found that they had no claim whatsoever to a contractual agreement. http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...aining-lawsuit
These contracts are completely unenforceable from a legal standpoint.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That being said, who cares. I signed a two year agreement when I got typed in the gulfstream. If the company was royally screwing me I'd leave regardless. Since they've honored their word I stay and work hard. Honor goes both ways, and a training agreement isn't worth the paper its on, it's the word that matters.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That is not a precedent setting case. No mention of what court nor any language from a higher court's judicial opinion. It was a "jury" case which doesn't decide issues of "law". Jury's decided issues of fact. Regardless that the article you cited is devoid of any real legal language, there was enough verbiage to deduce that the reason the jury found 'no contract' was that the parties did not reach a mutual understanding of the agreement. If you read my previous post you'll note that a "mutual agreement" is a contract requirement. There was no language that the contract was void on its face or that it violated any public policy or law. The jury merely found that "the parties did not agree on the interpretation of ‘training.’" [emphasis added]. So, these contracts are still enforceable.

"Wiley believes that this case sets a precedent for disputes between pilots and employers who insist that employees repay training costs if they leave before an agreed-on period of time has passed. “Now there is an actual case that got fought through to the bitter end,” he said. “This contract’s not worth the paper it’s written on.”"
That is a direct quote from the article.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is true, but it is still technically not a precedent setting case. IF, Flexjet had appealed, and an appellate or higher court had issued a "binding" opinion on the specific issue of whether these type of contracts where enforceable, then maybe we could talk. However, the only question answered in this case was whether Miller and Flexjet had "a meeting of the minds" (to use legalese) concerning the terms of the contract. You see, if the contract was found to be void on its face we would have seen a flurry of class action lawsuits on this very issue. The lawyer here was just throwing out talking points to make the case sound more important than it really was -- a simple, run of the mill contract dispute; not a precedent setting legal behemoth.

Your statement is entirely untrue.

Did you bother to read the article that you linked? You assert that Miller won, establishing precedent, when that didn't happen at all. In fact, the title of the article is "No clear winner in flexjet training law suit." You understand what his means, yes?

The suit between Miller and Flexjet went nowhere because both parties defaulted on their contract. Had flexjet given Miller his type and the training as agreed, Miller wouldn't have had a leg on which to stand, and yes, the contract would have been enforceable. There was no valid contract within which to seek relief, as both parties actions negated the value of the contract. Read, next time.

Apparently you read what you want to read, and disregard the rest.

What Wiley believes or doesn't believe is superfluous. Wiley is attorney for Miller, not the judge. Wiley is biased strictly to the interest of his client; neither party won. Flexjet was unable to collect, and Miller's law suit was unsatisfactory. The claims and counterclaims were null on account of both parties having defaulted on the agreement.