Training Bonds ..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training Bonds ..
At what point and under what conditions should Return of Service "Training Bonds" be considered to be onerous and really defacto enslavement ?
While most would argue a company spends much getting its employees trained on the equipment it may operate and it is only fair they get a return for that investment at what point might it be argued that those Return of Service agreements constitute an unfair restriction to an employees rights?
What fair/ unfair experiences have Rotorheads had and how does the legal system in various countries relate to the practice?
Thanks
While most would argue a company spends much getting its employees trained on the equipment it may operate and it is only fair they get a return for that investment at what point might it be argued that those Return of Service agreements constitute an unfair restriction to an employees rights?
What fair/ unfair experiences have Rotorheads had and how does the legal system in various countries relate to the practice?
Thanks
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been some court cases regarding this matter in Sweden and Denmark. This is from the top of my head;
Sweden:
The Swedish Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen) has had some rulings regarding the enforcement of training bonds by the military service. The military service didn't ask for all costs but only for a reduced cost of something in the region of £20.000. This amount was reduced depending on how long time the contract has lapsed. The employee actually got a higher salary because they were bonded, but only in the region of £100 per month.
The rulings have been that the military service can't enforce the training bonds. The only thing that happened is that the employee needed to pay back the extra money they earned because of the bond.
Denmark:
The Supreme Court of Denmark (Höjesteret) has had some similar court cases as mentioned as of above. The main difference has been that the value of the bond was more, maybe in the region of £100.000. However, this fee did still not reflect the actual cost of training which was much higher. There was no extra money paid only on due to the fact that the employee was on a training bond.
The ruling was that the employee had to pay the money due in accordance with the contract of employment.
As usual, the Swedish labour legislation, as well as the interpretation of it, is almost always in favour of employees that neglect one's duties. If I apply for a job I intend to follow any training bond signed. In countries like Denmark they will put me in favour of those applicants not intending to follow any bond agreement signed and hence not signing it.
If training bonds can't be enforced, it will not benefit helicopter pilot aspirants. If the agreements can't be enforced, operators would be more reluctive to sponsor employees and they have to gain all ratings on their own instead, and just hope that they will get a job at the end.
Sweden:
The Swedish Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen) has had some rulings regarding the enforcement of training bonds by the military service. The military service didn't ask for all costs but only for a reduced cost of something in the region of £20.000. This amount was reduced depending on how long time the contract has lapsed. The employee actually got a higher salary because they were bonded, but only in the region of £100 per month.
The rulings have been that the military service can't enforce the training bonds. The only thing that happened is that the employee needed to pay back the extra money they earned because of the bond.
Denmark:
The Supreme Court of Denmark (Höjesteret) has had some similar court cases as mentioned as of above. The main difference has been that the value of the bond was more, maybe in the region of £100.000. However, this fee did still not reflect the actual cost of training which was much higher. There was no extra money paid only on due to the fact that the employee was on a training bond.
The ruling was that the employee had to pay the money due in accordance with the contract of employment.
As usual, the Swedish labour legislation, as well as the interpretation of it, is almost always in favour of employees that neglect one's duties. If I apply for a job I intend to follow any training bond signed. In countries like Denmark they will put me in favour of those applicants not intending to follow any bond agreement signed and hence not signing it.
If training bonds can't be enforced, it will not benefit helicopter pilot aspirants. If the agreements can't be enforced, operators would be more reluctive to sponsor employees and they have to gain all ratings on their own instead, and just hope that they will get a job at the end.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm all well and good if you join an organisation and those are the rules of employment from the start.
BUT what if, for instance a largeish organisation has been operating for quite a number of years without training bonds being required, then as part of a fleet modernisation decides to introduce a new type of a/c... would it be considered fair to introduce MANDATORY training bonds for its (long term)employees effectively being forced on to a new type?
???
BUT what if, for instance a largeish organisation has been operating for quite a number of years without training bonds being required, then as part of a fleet modernisation decides to introduce a new type of a/c... would it be considered fair to introduce MANDATORY training bonds for its (long term)employees effectively being forced on to a new type?
???
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flip side of the coin....O.K. Mr. Employer, I will stay for three years as per my bond
a) because I can't afford to pay it back and
b) I actually want to stay working here, I have just bought a house, my family like it here etc......Now, will you sign this piece of paper GUARANTEEING my job will be here for a minimum of three years?????????
Can you see the point gents, very one sided...if the're are a good employer, pay,benefits etc, and don't treat their employees badly, most people will honour their commitments (now I understand there may be one or two that can't due to maybe personal reasons, also one or two
who screw the system
, these are however a very small number of people,so there is no excuse to penalise the majority!
Regards,
Fatigue.
a) because I can't afford to pay it back and
b) I actually want to stay working here, I have just bought a house, my family like it here etc......Now, will you sign this piece of paper GUARANTEEING my job will be here for a minimum of three years?????????
Can you see the point gents, very one sided...if the're are a good employer, pay,benefits etc, and don't treat their employees badly, most people will honour their commitments (now I understand there may be one or two that can't due to maybe personal reasons, also one or two
who screw the system , these are however a very small number of people,so there is no excuse to penalise the majority! Regards,
Fatigue.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Denver, CO and the GOM
Age: 63
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say you will be offered an after-tax salary of $40,000/yr. You also need to be trained on type. The employer deducts 1/24 the cost of training from each paycheck, to be paid as a bonus after 24 months of service. If you leave before 1 year is up, no bonus. If you leave between 1 and two years, you get 1/3 the pro-rata bonus.
So if your training cost $5,000 you would take home $3,100 per month for two years instead of $3,300 a month - at the end of two years you get the $5,000 check
If your employer terminates your employment in the first two years for cause (as outlined in the P & P manual), no bonus. If your employer terminates your employment for any other reason, you get the pro-rata bonus for every month of service.
So if your training cost $5,000 you would take home $3,100 per month for two years instead of $3,300 a month - at the end of two years you get the $5,000 check
If your employer terminates your employment in the first two years for cause (as outlined in the P & P manual), no bonus. If your employer terminates your employment for any other reason, you get the pro-rata bonus for every month of service.
Last edited by Flingwing207; 25th May 2006 at 15:00.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT what if, for instance a largeish organisation has been operating for quite a number of years without training bonds being required, then as part of a fleet modernisation decides to introduce a new type of a/c... would it be considered fair to introduce MANDATORY training bonds for its (long term)employees effectively being forced on to a new type?
If you are on a training bond flying a particular aircraft and the employer no longer got that aircraft or want to pay for your conversion to the new aircraft, the employer has no use of you anymore. Let's assume that the employer doesn't have to pay for the conversion, they will probably cancel the contract. If the employer cancels the contract, you normally don't need to pay back the bond and you are free to go to another employer.
Now, will you sign this piece of paper GUARANTEEING my job will be here for a minimum of three years
now I understand there may be one or two that can't due to maybe personal reasons, also one or two who screw the system , these are however a very small number of people,so there is no excuse to penalise the majority!
Pay a (small) bonus at one year, a larger one at two years. The combined bonus equals the cost of training, and is deducted from salary.
Bear in mind though that the labour legislation is very difference from country to country.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatigue, are you saying that there are helicopter operators in the UK who bond you for three years (for an IR say) and, if they make you redundant, enforce the bond and make you pay the cost (or part thereof) back? I can't imagine that to be enforcable at all.
Spinwing, in your example, I would have thought that to be most unfair and contrary to an employment contract and again not enforcable.
I don't think the concept of training bonds is unfair at all but the terms must be fairly devised.
Cheers
Whirls
Spinwing, in your example, I would have thought that to be most unfair and contrary to an employment contract and again not enforcable.
I don't think the concept of training bonds is unfair at all but the terms must be fairly devised.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: planet earth
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spinwing, first a few questions.
1. Did you sign a contract with your employer, and if so was there any mention of training bonds at that time?
2. What is the amount of the bond and over what period of time is it applicable?
3. Have training bonds been used before on different types within the company?
4. Is there a clause that mentions pro-rata pay back?
5. Will your job be jeopardised if you don't sign?
1. Did you sign a contract with your employer, and if so was there any mention of training bonds at that time?
2. What is the amount of the bond and over what period of time is it applicable?
3. Have training bonds been used before on different types within the company?
4. Is there a clause that mentions pro-rata pay back?
5. Will your job be jeopardised if you don't sign?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
munchkins
To answer you queries theoretically (???) for the purposes of the question...lets say ....
1. Yes and No! respectively.
2. In excess of US$10,000 for a return of service of say... 2Yrs!
3. No. And in the past pilots have been hired and trained on presently operated equipment without being required to make any RoS agreement.
4. No.
5. Yes.
AND as an extra it is quite possible that said Bond MAY be used as a lever to restrict, reduce or possibly eliminate any pay rise for the duration of said agreement.
???
To answer you queries theoretically (???) for the purposes of the question...lets say ....
1. Yes and No! respectively.
2. In excess of US$10,000 for a return of service of say... 2Yrs!
3. No. And in the past pilots have been hired and trained on presently operated equipment without being required to make any RoS agreement.
4. No.
5. Yes.
AND as an extra it is quite possible that said Bond MAY be used as a lever to restrict, reduce or possibly eliminate any pay rise for the duration of said agreement.
???
Last edited by spinwing; 26th May 2006 at 09:03.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had this discussion a few times before....
I agree with the statement that bonds are now part of the 'system' and as long as they are fair I personnally don't have a problem with the idea.
One point that is worth mentioning is that without a 'return of service' bond in place it is easy to get a 'Bad Name' in a small industry if you desire/need to leave an organisation shortly after gaining an expensive ticket. The term 'ticket collector' comes to mind.....
With a bond in place you can pay it out as required and leave without the stigma. Sometimes this is a good thing.
I agree with the statement that bonds are now part of the 'system' and as long as they are fair I personnally don't have a problem with the idea.
One point that is worth mentioning is that without a 'return of service' bond in place it is easy to get a 'Bad Name' in a small industry if you desire/need to leave an organisation shortly after gaining an expensive ticket. The term 'ticket collector' comes to mind.....
With a bond in place you can pay it out as required and leave without the stigma. Sometimes this is a good thing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh ...Yes
That is why I asked the question .... What contitutes "Fair" ?
Usually the protection of law to ensure a reasonable protection of rights to both parties of a contract?
Thus one might expect that a unilateral decision of say a employer to be able to dictate the terms required of a bond MIGHT remove from an employee their fair terms of enployment as we consider them in this modern world.
I suppose the question has to do with retrospective changes to a contract of employment that advantage one party only!
That is why I asked the question .... What contitutes "Fair" ?
Usually the protection of law to ensure a reasonable protection of rights to both parties of a contract?
Thus one might expect that a unilateral decision of say a employer to be able to dictate the terms required of a bond MIGHT remove from an employee their fair terms of enployment as we consider them in this modern world.
I suppose the question has to do with retrospective changes to a contract of employment that advantage one party only!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: planet earth
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SPINWING
Having re-read this thread I have come to the deduction that you are working for a company that is moving up a notch or two by introducing a new type into their fleet? IMHO, you as a professional aviator have to ask yourself is signing the bond worth it for your future, not only with your present employer but perhaps future employers too?
If this is the case, and you think there is a future with them, I don't see any reason why you should not sign a training bond. In a way they are guaranteeing you employment for 2 years. However, on the other hand if there is any doubt what so ever that you could be leaving within the 2 year period do not sign the bond. Too bad it wasn't pro-rata.
Is there a chance you can discuss your issues with your management and come to some sort of an "agreement in principle" that will not only help you but others at a later date? One more question. Will there be an increase in your salary if you sign the bond and sucessfully complete the transition? More $$$ is always a good thing for those of us in this industry that are trying desperately trying to catch up to our fixed wing brethern. Good luck, let us know how you make out.
Munchkins
Having re-read this thread I have come to the deduction that you are working for a company that is moving up a notch or two by introducing a new type into their fleet? IMHO, you as a professional aviator have to ask yourself is signing the bond worth it for your future, not only with your present employer but perhaps future employers too?
If this is the case, and you think there is a future with them, I don't see any reason why you should not sign a training bond. In a way they are guaranteeing you employment for 2 years. However, on the other hand if there is any doubt what so ever that you could be leaving within the 2 year period do not sign the bond. Too bad it wasn't pro-rata.
Is there a chance you can discuss your issues with your management and come to some sort of an "agreement in principle" that will not only help you but others at a later date? One more question. Will there be an increase in your salary if you sign the bond and sucessfully complete the transition? More $$$ is always a good thing for those of us in this industry that are trying desperately trying to catch up to our fixed wing brethern. Good luck, let us know how you make out.
Munchkins
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
munchkins ...
Thanks for your inputs, though I fear you have jumped to some invalid conclusions ...
Actually I am sort of questioning as the "Devils Advocate" to a certain extent !!
If you read my original thread I was asking what would be considered fair in terms of training bonds in the industry today .... some countries allow them some don't ...some companies have various ways of circumventing the legalities by using loans (???) what I wanted was to get the views of people who have had these bonds imposed, whether they be considered good or bad perhaps if some companies have used them (the bonds) as a means to manipulate, dis-enfranchise or in some way dis-advantage their workforce particularly where an experienced workforce may presented with a "do this or else" situation. This may be done as a means of culling numbers, or it may be done to ensure that once signed up no pay increases might occur for that period, or it may be just to balance company books!
What I wanted if you like was a world view of pilot/engineers attitudes!
Thanks Spinny
Thanks for your inputs, though I fear you have jumped to some invalid conclusions ...
Actually I am sort of questioning as the "Devils Advocate" to a certain extent !!
If you read my original thread I was asking what would be considered fair in terms of training bonds in the industry today .... some countries allow them some don't ...some companies have various ways of circumventing the legalities by using loans (???) what I wanted was to get the views of people who have had these bonds imposed, whether they be considered good or bad perhaps if some companies have used them (the bonds) as a means to manipulate, dis-enfranchise or in some way dis-advantage their workforce particularly where an experienced workforce may presented with a "do this or else" situation. This may be done as a means of culling numbers, or it may be done to ensure that once signed up no pay increases might occur for that period, or it may be just to balance company books!
What I wanted if you like was a world view of pilot/engineers attitudes!
Thanks Spinny
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spinwing, Are ADA really considering a training bond for the AB 139.? If no-one signs the bond where will they find pilots to work the new fleet? Does the company pay enough to attract new people to an already over complex area to work, let alone on a new type? From what i know of them they dont pay enough now.
