Training Bonds - Fair or unfair?
Thread Starter
This is a topic that has been covered on a few different threads. More and more here in Aus. anyone wishing to step up to multi engine or IF flying has to be prepared to sign their life a way for a certain "bond"period.
From an operators point of view this can be mildly understood. No-one wants to spend money on an employee so they can go and utilise those skills elsewhere.
My question is:
Considering this mentality, why is it that the prior commitments and achievements of an existing employee within companies are not factored into the equation?
It is all well and good to expect an individual to pay their dues following some type of extensive training but what about the dues that have already been paid? ie-working days off, working extra duties, unpaid overtime etc. (This obviously excludes those new to companies requiring this training)
It is a tough industry to get into, and you have to be prepared to put in the hard yards and many have but there has to be a line somewhere right? Particularly considering how pathetic the award is.When do you stop getting shafted?
Some poor Joe can go in on countless days off and earn the boss thousands of extra $'s for no OT, no days in luie when the machine would otherwise have sat on the ground. Yet come training time that is not considered in most cases.
A long winded bitch I realise, but I think that if, as an operator you decide to have these training bonds in place then I think that prior performance should play more of a role in considering the individual bond.
The good old days of busting your @ss for peanuts is gone. It is just too expensive to live. Just ask your boss how much it costs to put fuel in his X5 each week!
I would like to hear what the employers think.
From an operators point of view this can be mildly understood. No-one wants to spend money on an employee so they can go and utilise those skills elsewhere.
My question is:
Considering this mentality, why is it that the prior commitments and achievements of an existing employee within companies are not factored into the equation?
It is all well and good to expect an individual to pay their dues following some type of extensive training but what about the dues that have already been paid? ie-working days off, working extra duties, unpaid overtime etc. (This obviously excludes those new to companies requiring this training)
It is a tough industry to get into, and you have to be prepared to put in the hard yards and many have but there has to be a line somewhere right? Particularly considering how pathetic the award is.When do you stop getting shafted?
Some poor Joe can go in on countless days off and earn the boss thousands of extra $'s for no OT, no days in luie when the machine would otherwise have sat on the ground. Yet come training time that is not considered in most cases.
A long winded bitch I realise, but I think that if, as an operator you decide to have these training bonds in place then I think that prior performance should play more of a role in considering the individual bond.
The good old days of busting your @ss for peanuts is gone. It is just too expensive to live. Just ask your boss how much it costs to put fuel in his X5 each week!
I would like to hear what the employers think.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bellfest I am backin you all the way son!
Some employers are all nice to you, then when you ask for a pay rise they seem to find every little thing you have ever done wrong and use it against you instead of looking for the good you do them!!
And companys wonder why pilots are always looking else where for work..........
Some employers are all nice to you, then when you ask for a pay rise they seem to find every little thing you have ever done wrong and use it against you instead of looking for the good you do them!!
And companys wonder why pilots are always looking else where for work..........
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aus, Europe & everywhere in between
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spent quite a while in Oz, there are not many companies that upgrade pilots to IFR. The ME upgrades are done more often.
I did hear of an operator in Oz that was upgrading pilots to IFR for ghastly lengths of tenure and conditions. I was surprised that some pilots actually accepted the conditions. I understand that the turnover of these pilots is very high.
BellFest - I fully agree with your sentiments. Reward your employees! You will most likely get a better pilot out of it.
Most companies I know of require a return of service for an endorsement (1 or 2 years) rather than money up front. This is fair for new pilots coming into a company.
I did hear of an operator in Oz that was upgrading pilots to IFR for ghastly lengths of tenure and conditions. I was surprised that some pilots actually accepted the conditions. I understand that the turnover of these pilots is very high.
BellFest - I fully agree with your sentiments. Reward your employees! You will most likely get a better pilot out of it.
Most companies I know of require a return of service for an endorsement (1 or 2 years) rather than money up front. This is fair for new pilots coming into a company.
Thread Starter
MD
Not that silly mate. What those lads get is beyond shafting. Believe it or not I am lucky enough to work for one of the good companies now and I am no longer shafted. I guess I have answered my own question about when it stops hey! It is just past experiences and what is going on in the industry that annoys me.
HR
There are good companies out there to work for and I have probably made it sound worse than it is. The fact is that it is an option that some companies are choosing to take and they have got the upper hand in this. I just believe that more often than not not in these cases the driver deserves a bit of prior recognition and he/she doesn't get it.
Not that silly mate. What those lads get is beyond shafting. Believe it or not I am lucky enough to work for one of the good companies now and I am no longer shafted. I guess I have answered my own question about when it stops hey! It is just past experiences and what is going on in the industry that annoys me.
HR
There are good companies out there to work for and I have probably made it sound worse than it is. The fact is that it is an option that some companies are choosing to take and they have got the upper hand in this. I just believe that more often than not not in these cases the driver deserves a bit of prior recognition and he/she doesn't get it.
Big Mike
I think that in reality, 2 years for the type rating is reasonable. It is a representation of how long it will take the company to earn that money by the work that you will do! Your conversion onto a Squirrel will obviously be much cheaper than a puma etc. however it will earn revenue at a slower rate. If you leave after a year, you still get a half price conversion.
My opinion is that a bond is acceptable for initial type rating with a company and for the initial instrument rating, however conversions after that should not be bonded. That has been the process with every company I have worked for and seems generally accepted.
Regards
TeeS
I think that in reality, 2 years for the type rating is reasonable. It is a representation of how long it will take the company to earn that money by the work that you will do! Your conversion onto a Squirrel will obviously be much cheaper than a puma etc. however it will earn revenue at a slower rate. If you leave after a year, you still get a half price conversion.
My opinion is that a bond is acceptable for initial type rating with a company and for the initial instrument rating, however conversions after that should not be bonded. That has been the process with every company I have worked for and seems generally accepted.
Regards
TeeS
2 years for a type rating is reasonable??????????
Lets say the type rating is 5 hours for a light turbine.
Direct operating cost per hour ( what the operator really pays for your endorsement ) say - 600 bucks
so for 3000 bucks you're going to stay 2 years??
In 25 years in this business I have never signed a bond and never will!
Trust me it was just a hard to get a job back then.
Lets say the type rating is 5 hours for a light turbine.
Direct operating cost per hour ( what the operator really pays for your endorsement ) say - 600 bucks
so for 3000 bucks you're going to stay 2 years??
In 25 years in this business I have never signed a bond and never will!
Trust me it was just a hard to get a job back then.
Thread Starter
Tees,
Companies wanting to recoupe money spent on training is just sensible business. What about the money made and saved by the employee already? All too often there is the mentality that, if it can not be calculated on a spreadsheet than it is not part of the equation. In these cases it's not fair and it's not smart. Just remember that these endorsements/ratings aren't given as a charity. You're are gonna go out and put it to use for the company and earn them income. 99.9% of the time, a lot more income to justify a 2 yr bond. Make a point of rewarding and recognise their efforts and they'll stay two years anyway.(AND THE AWARD AINT NO REWARD!)
Companies wanting to recoupe money spent on training is just sensible business. What about the money made and saved by the employee already? All too often there is the mentality that, if it can not be calculated on a spreadsheet than it is not part of the equation. In these cases it's not fair and it's not smart. Just remember that these endorsements/ratings aren't given as a charity. You're are gonna go out and put it to use for the company and earn them income. 99.9% of the time, a lot more income to justify a 2 yr bond. Make a point of rewarding and recognise their efforts and they'll stay two years anyway.(AND THE AWARD AINT NO REWARD!)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well guys thell me this,
how can a company give you a endorsement and sign you up for 2 years pro rada, for a 3 hr turbine endorsement not a 5 hr initial turbine make you pay for it monthly BUT, the whole thing was done whilst the machine was on a revenue job....???
Double dipping..??
Thought on that gents..?
how can a company give you a endorsement and sign you up for 2 years pro rada, for a 3 hr turbine endorsement not a 5 hr initial turbine make you pay for it monthly BUT, the whole thing was done whilst the machine was on a revenue job....???
Double dipping..??
Thought on that gents..?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course we do tend to forget that any training that HAS to be done in order to furnish crew to earn an operator income IS TAX DEDUCTABLE for that operator ... AND in some cases MAY allow them to apply to a Govt agency for a grant .... AND sometimes a client also pays to have crew trained and or kept current to a particular standard for that job .....!!!
Thread Starter
Guru,
It is bad enough to do it period let alone on a revenue job. I guess if DCVC and others are happy to do so then they don't feel as though they have earned it prior. I would like to make it clear that I am only talking about the long termers working for companies that don't reward the employee for extra duties. (And I wouldn't mind taking a guess at the % of companies that don't). 11 years of employment and no long service due to a technical hitch, 100's of extra days for no bread and a big fat bill to pay on leaving has given me reason to think that there should be a few more factors involved in calculating a bond.
It is bad enough to do it period let alone on a revenue job. I guess if DCVC and others are happy to do so then they don't feel as though they have earned it prior. I would like to make it clear that I am only talking about the long termers working for companies that don't reward the employee for extra duties. (And I wouldn't mind taking a guess at the % of companies that don't). 11 years of employment and no long service due to a technical hitch, 100's of extra days for no bread and a big fat bill to pay on leaving has given me reason to think that there should be a few more factors involved in calculating a bond.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bell fest ,
I know exactly what you mean mate, the crew I am workin for now give you everything that will profit them in the long term which is great but some ppl take advantage of it which sucks!!
I think if a company wants you to fly a certain type they should pay because it really doesnt cost them that much, I was chargred full charter rate for a endorsement that was done on a company ferry and a company job, the pro rada deal was over 2 years and i left after 1 and i still paid for half........and didnt they buck when i asked for a official reciept!!!
anyway that was years ago i got what i wanted and so did they....no hard feelings.....
I know exactly what you mean mate, the crew I am workin for now give you everything that will profit them in the long term which is great but some ppl take advantage of it which sucks!!
I think if a company wants you to fly a certain type they should pay because it really doesnt cost them that much, I was chargred full charter rate for a endorsement that was done on a company ferry and a company job, the pro rada deal was over 2 years and i left after 1 and i still paid for half........and didnt they buck when i asked for a official reciept!!!
anyway that was years ago i got what i wanted and so did they....no hard feelings.....
Thread Starter
The reason I origonally posted this topic is because I wanted to hear from those operators who have/planning to introduce/d the bond. I don't want to bitch about drivers getting a hard time I would just like to see some constructive debate between operator and pilot about the issue.
Many important sums of a good business have no numbers, ie-morale, recognition etc., and in aviation a large amount of employees don't therefore believe they exist. Therein lies the problem. This is just another example.
There is no doubt good employers out there but they are unfortunately outnumbered.
I have come to the conclusion that if a company is going to introduce a training bond they should incorporate a system of prior recognition for each individual based on factors such as term of employment ( A monthly or % reduction for each year of service), dedication ( A bit of an ambiguos one but could be addressed and decided by senior staff), extra duties and general performance and this should have an effect on the length and/or amount of the bond come time for further training.
It would just balance it out a bit more and make it bit more attractive to both parties and more than likely aid in more cases of long term employment. Before and after training.
Many important sums of a good business have no numbers, ie-morale, recognition etc., and in aviation a large amount of employees don't therefore believe they exist. Therein lies the problem. This is just another example.
There is no doubt good employers out there but they are unfortunately outnumbered.
I have come to the conclusion that if a company is going to introduce a training bond they should incorporate a system of prior recognition for each individual based on factors such as term of employment ( A monthly or % reduction for each year of service), dedication ( A bit of an ambiguos one but could be addressed and decided by senior staff), extra duties and general performance and this should have an effect on the length and/or amount of the bond come time for further training.
It would just balance it out a bit more and make it bit more attractive to both parties and more than likely aid in more cases of long term employment. Before and after training.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All well and good mate but some companys use it as a carrott which to me is a whole load of ****!! and BONDING is illegal anyway! I just wish companys didnt go about nit in the way they do,..........I am sure they would get better results!
Thread Starter
This is all why I think the prior recognition idea makes it fair. The nature of the industry (and many others) means there is more than a good chance that you will be working above and beyond your call of duty whether there is a chance to progress onto bigger and better things in the company or not. It just means that it will pay off for you if the opportunity does arise. A company has the right to protect there assets and expenditures and in the case of new faces it is not so unfair.
Albatross,
You're right, no company would do that in a million years because it is not costing you any money. If however they were smart enough to give you "credit" for your efforts they would find overall a lot more value for their outlay in morale and continued service. I for one would be much more enclined to maintain a position in a company that recognised and rewarded you for your efforts as opposed to trying to tie you down financially.
Where are the operators? What do you think?
Albatross,
You're right, no company would do that in a million years because it is not costing you any money. If however they were smart enough to give you "credit" for your efforts they would find overall a lot more value for their outlay in morale and continued service. I for one would be much more enclined to maintain a position in a company that recognised and rewarded you for your efforts as opposed to trying to tie you down financially.
Where are the operators? What do you think?
Two similar companies - Company A and Company B
Company A offers you a job for 40000 a year bonded for 3000 over 2 years for your conversion.
Company B offers you a job for 37000 a year with the conversion thrown in.
Which job do you accept?
In my opinion, judging a company, to decide whether you are going to get screwed over, is far better done by talking to current/ex employees than seeing whether they will bond you.
TeeS
Company A offers you a job for 40000 a year bonded for 3000 over 2 years for your conversion.
Company B offers you a job for 37000 a year with the conversion thrown in.
Which job do you accept?
In my opinion, judging a company, to decide whether you are going to get screwed over, is far better done by talking to current/ex employees than seeing whether they will bond you.
TeeS