EU Law to ban Airline Bonds!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii, my earlier post was one of utter frustration not at arguing the issue, but at the level of some of the abuse you and guvnor seem to want to hand out.
for god sake you were even reduced to arguing about the quality of your names. with respect that is childish and diminishes your other arguements.
I have debated bonds before and am happy to do so again. Clearly you feel very passionately about the issue and I respect and admire your passion and your right to hold your views. What I would ask you to do, with respect, is to control your emotions and not let your good arguements of which there are many to be compromised by entering into slagging matches. All that then happens is that others with equally valid views are discouraged from posting
As I said I will always defend your and others rights to hold and express your views in a constructive fashion. On this particual issue I happen to disagree with you.
I think you are going down the wrong line with trying to prove bonds are illegal or about to become so. With respect better lawyers than yourself have looked into this and have not concluded that this is the case.
It is an entirely different arguement as to whether bonds are morally right. With respect Tilii I think your case is much stronger here than on legal grounds. I have to say though personally I still disagree with you for reasons I will discuss below.
There will clearly be abuses of the system and those that do occur are unfortunate and in some cases indefensible. Quite often though where there has been clear abuse by the employer, the employee will have legal recourse to avoid being liable for the bond.
The vast majority of bonds though in my opinion are put in place by a decent employer
whose argument and deal with the prospective employee is " I will put a lot of time and effort and money into providing you with a valuable skill for the long term benefit of both yourself and the company. All I ask in return is that you guarentee to allow me a return on that investment by not disappearing off to pastures new as soon as you are trained". I would love that to be a gentlemans agreement but I think reality especially where demand for pilots exceeds supply is that the employer needs to back that up with an enforcable agreement. Remember pilot on signing for a bond is asked to agree to work for company for say three years and if he does so the bond is irrelevant. Only if he breaks that commitment does the bond kick in.
There are a few cases when unscrupulous employer abuses this position, but I think in honesty from my experience these are very rare and I dont believe you can throw out an overall system because of an isolated number of irregularities.
Tilii and others are welcome to a different view and I am happy to debate in a rational and intelligent manner. I have to say though I dont live my life around PPrune and so from time to time I will only jump in to discussions on page 3 or later of a debate.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Minogue
After what you had to say in your prior post on this thread, I feel somewhat reluctant to provide a comprehensive response to your latest post. However …
What I will say is that I am not guilty of “trying to prove bonds are illegal or about to become so”. I have long felt that they are immoral. I believed, in fact, that they were legal. Since a close friend of mine became embroiled in a bonding argument with his employer, I have taken a great deal more interest in the subject. I am now convinced that bonds are not only immoral, they are probably unlawful.
It matters not what you say has gone before. It takes just one good case in an appropriate court to set the required precedent. Frankly, it would be a wonderful thing if the groundbreaking case were that of my friend: morally, he deserves to win and his employer deserves to lose. Simple as that really. The important thing is that he is not alone in his plight, and whether or not you personally hold that “there are a few cases when [an] unscrupulous employer abuses this position, but … these are very rare” is not important. Your personal experience is, you claim, limited to that of an airline manager. Thus you do not by your own statement have first hand experience from the bonded employee’s perspective.
Whether or not you personally agree, it is now clear that abusive practice by airline employers using bonding agreements as a coercive bludgeon is widespread.
By the way, I would be obliged if you would leave God out of this matter. I find your flippant use of His name quite offensive.
After what you had to say in your prior post on this thread, I feel somewhat reluctant to provide a comprehensive response to your latest post. However …
What I will say is that I am not guilty of “trying to prove bonds are illegal or about to become so”. I have long felt that they are immoral. I believed, in fact, that they were legal. Since a close friend of mine became embroiled in a bonding argument with his employer, I have taken a great deal more interest in the subject. I am now convinced that bonds are not only immoral, they are probably unlawful.
It matters not what you say has gone before. It takes just one good case in an appropriate court to set the required precedent. Frankly, it would be a wonderful thing if the groundbreaking case were that of my friend: morally, he deserves to win and his employer deserves to lose. Simple as that really. The important thing is that he is not alone in his plight, and whether or not you personally hold that “there are a few cases when [an] unscrupulous employer abuses this position, but … these are very rare” is not important. Your personal experience is, you claim, limited to that of an airline manager. Thus you do not by your own statement have first hand experience from the bonded employee’s perspective.
Whether or not you personally agree, it is now clear that abusive practice by airline employers using bonding agreements as a coercive bludgeon is widespread.
By the way, I would be obliged if you would leave God out of this matter. I find your flippant use of His name quite offensive.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just my own thoughts.
I recently got a new job against some stiff opposition. My new employer asked me to bond to the tune of 20,000 sterling for two years.
For that I get a new type rating plus considerable other investment in myself, including better salary, better pension deal and other benefits.
Both myself and the employer get peace of mind that I will probably stay for at least two years. I don't have a problem with it, especially bearing in mind that if I was to be required to pay the full cost of my training I probably couldn't afford to do it.
Artyfish
I recently got a new job against some stiff opposition. My new employer asked me to bond to the tune of 20,000 sterling for two years.
For that I get a new type rating plus considerable other investment in myself, including better salary, better pension deal and other benefits.
Both myself and the employer get peace of mind that I will probably stay for at least two years. I don't have a problem with it, especially bearing in mind that if I was to be required to pay the full cost of my training I probably couldn't afford to do it.
Artyfish
Guest
Posts: n/a
Artyfish
Hearty congratulations, dear chap. And I’m pleased you have no problem with the bond. However, I wonder if you actually realise that the benefits of which you speak were available to pilots long before you were on the scene, and without the imposition of a bond?
I sincerely hope that all goes well for you in your new employment. If it does not, you may find yourself whistling a different tune.
Personally, I think your bond is not only immoral, it is excessive. I assume you are being trained on the B744, B777 or the A330/340? If not, it might be wise to ask for detailed costing as to company expenditure.
Just one small point: why do you say that you will “probably” stay for at least two years? I trust you don’t have plans to jump ship before that time, do you?
Hearty congratulations, dear chap. And I’m pleased you have no problem with the bond. However, I wonder if you actually realise that the benefits of which you speak were available to pilots long before you were on the scene, and without the imposition of a bond?
I sincerely hope that all goes well for you in your new employment. If it does not, you may find yourself whistling a different tune.
Personally, I think your bond is not only immoral, it is excessive. I assume you are being trained on the B744, B777 or the A330/340? If not, it might be wise to ask for detailed costing as to company expenditure.
Just one small point: why do you say that you will “probably” stay for at least two years? I trust you don’t have plans to jump ship before that time, do you?
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii
Clearly you feel very passionately about your friends case. Obviously I and no-one else can comment on the details of the individual case as we dont know these details. If, as you say, he has been badly treated, I wish him all the best in his case. I would advise him to get a good lawyer to give himself a chance.
It does not follow though that
the one case you clearly and perhaps correctly feel so strongly about
means that "abusive practise by airline employers is widespread".
Yes there are a few cowboys out there but in general most reputable airlines will treat staff of all persuasion fairly for two very good commercial reasons:
1) upset staff mean demotivated staff mean
badly performing staff
2) a reputation for treating staff badly, which in a small world like aviation spreads very quickly, means it becomes very very difficult to recruit the next lot.
Enough from me on this topic I think, cos I think we will never agree. In the meantime to quote Zebedee's immortal words, and so to bed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I reiterate: in the event that bonding is deemed illegal/unenforceable, employers will simply move to something that is enforeceable - either personal loans or self financed training.
Bonds are probably the best solution for the overwhelming majority of people - rocking the boat will cause more tears than smiles.
Bonds are probably the best solution for the overwhelming majority of people - rocking the boat will cause more tears than smiles.
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilli
I am not sure if it was your post, but there was a thread called "New Slant on Bonding" or something like that, that seems to have disappeared.
Is there any chance you can e-mail me what you posted (if it was yours), as I didn't get to read it - someone said it was really interesting, and I'm very keen on reading it (and I am NOT a beancounter/suit, nor a professional pilot).
My e-mail address is in my profile.
Thanks!
I am not sure if it was your post, but there was a thread called "New Slant on Bonding" or something like that, that seems to have disappeared.
Is there any chance you can e-mail me what you posted (if it was yours), as I didn't get to read it - someone said it was really interesting, and I'm very keen on reading it (and I am NOT a beancounter/suit, nor a professional pilot).
My e-mail address is in my profile.
Thanks!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Birdstrike
Yes, it was a thread that I started. I did so coz I thought this one was dead. However, after I closed it, I then inserted its text into this thread which you will find about 2/3 down page 3 hereof (posted at 1853hrs).
It is, I think, an interesting argument and the post is largely a barrister's view on the subject. In fact it is from the 'good lawyer' that airline manager Minogue above counselled that my friend should have in order "to give himself a chance".
Incidentally Minogue, the case is well served by 'good' solicitors and this 'good' barrister and is fully funded by the Legal Services Commission. It is the barrister's stated opinion that the case is not only of importance to the pilot but is of wide public interest with regard to airline safety (it's not simply about bonding, though it is a classic case of an employer attempting to use a bonding agreement to force an employee to do its bidding - I think the legal term is 'application of economic duress').
When it's all over, it might be interesting to post the result on PPRuNe provided, of course, that the moderators would have no objection. Trial date not yet set but methinks it will be a goodly battle.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 31 May 2001).]
Yes, it was a thread that I started. I did so coz I thought this one was dead. However, after I closed it, I then inserted its text into this thread which you will find about 2/3 down page 3 hereof (posted at 1853hrs).
It is, I think, an interesting argument and the post is largely a barrister's view on the subject. In fact it is from the 'good lawyer' that airline manager Minogue above counselled that my friend should have in order "to give himself a chance".
Incidentally Minogue, the case is well served by 'good' solicitors and this 'good' barrister and is fully funded by the Legal Services Commission. It is the barrister's stated opinion that the case is not only of importance to the pilot but is of wide public interest with regard to airline safety (it's not simply about bonding, though it is a classic case of an employer attempting to use a bonding agreement to force an employee to do its bidding - I think the legal term is 'application of economic duress').
When it's all over, it might be interesting to post the result on PPRuNe provided, of course, that the moderators would have no objection. Trial date not yet set but methinks it will be a goodly battle.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 31 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Seems to me - pilots now have the choice of rejecting employers who choose to bond. The supply of pilots is less than the demand and so the onus is on you to simply say NO. Tell your new employer what your expectations are at the interview stage, be realistic, firm but fair. If it means walking away on a point of principle then do so - it is the only way to stop this unscrupulous and bad practice by employers.
Anyone one of you who has strived to achieve an ATPL has done very well indeed so don't allow anyone to undervalue your skill, hard work, and single minded determination. You have cetainly earned the right to an extremely good salary with above average terms and conditions!
Anyone one of you who has strived to achieve an ATPL has done very well indeed so don't allow anyone to undervalue your skill, hard work, and single minded determination. You have cetainly earned the right to an extremely good salary with above average terms and conditions!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bonding has already been found to be questionable by the European Court. IN the famous Bosmann ruling, such bonding was deemed to in conflict with a workers right of free movement within the EU.
Whilst this thread was started in relation to bonding pilots for type ratings, many airlines that engage in cadet pilot training, bond them for exhorbitant amounts over extended periods. In some cases, periods of SEVEN years have been known.
Whilst an employer can claim reasonable measure to recouperate training costs, no court could uphold the unreasonable time periods in some cases. An employee can also legitimately argue that the pay differential between the market rate for the job, and the low wage received at many of the airlines that train up their cadets, amounts to an alleviation of the lien that the employer is claiming.
Whilst this thread was started in relation to bonding pilots for type ratings, many airlines that engage in cadet pilot training, bond them for exhorbitant amounts over extended periods. In some cases, periods of SEVEN years have been known.
Whilst an employer can claim reasonable measure to recouperate training costs, no court could uphold the unreasonable time periods in some cases. An employee can also legitimately argue that the pay differential between the market rate for the job, and the low wage received at many of the airlines that train up their cadets, amounts to an alleviation of the lien that the employer is claiming.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tillii,
Thanks for your advice and good wishes.
Yes, undoubtedly similar benefits were available before I came on the scene (although I have been flying professionally for 25 years so I am not exactly a newcomer).
If I hadn't accepted the terms then I am quite certain the next pilot in line would have. I do know what my employer is paying because I have the intelligence to work it out for myself.
No, I don't have any plans to obtain a type rating at the expense of one employer and then apply to another for employment in order to take advantage. In my opinion THAT is also immoral. So the bond is of no consequence.
If I did have such a trick up my sleeve, I wouldn't be stupid enough to announce it either in private or especially in a public forum. And I wouldn't have been silly enough to sign up to a 20 grand bond, would I?
Artyfish
Thanks for your advice and good wishes.
Yes, undoubtedly similar benefits were available before I came on the scene (although I have been flying professionally for 25 years so I am not exactly a newcomer).
If I hadn't accepted the terms then I am quite certain the next pilot in line would have. I do know what my employer is paying because I have the intelligence to work it out for myself.
No, I don't have any plans to obtain a type rating at the expense of one employer and then apply to another for employment in order to take advantage. In my opinion THAT is also immoral. So the bond is of no consequence.
If I did have such a trick up my sleeve, I wouldn't be stupid enough to announce it either in private or especially in a public forum. And I wouldn't have been silly enough to sign up to a 20 grand bond, would I?
Artyfish
Guest
Posts: n/a
Arty ... er, Fish
I really don't know. Would you be so 'stupid' or 'silly' as you ask? Only you know that, but your signature (as distinct from your full username) may carry an inference that you would only do so with some ulterior motive in mind.
Oh, and The Guvnor
In your reiteration above are you saying, then, that employers frustrated by a court finding that bonds are illegal/unenforceable will move to insistence that pilots take out personal loans or self finance their training and that this will in some way be ENFORCEABLE? If so, I suggest you might think again.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 01 June 2001).]
I really don't know. Would you be so 'stupid' or 'silly' as you ask? Only you know that, but your signature (as distinct from your full username) may carry an inference that you would only do so with some ulterior motive in mind.
Oh, and The Guvnor
In your reiteration above are you saying, then, that employers frustrated by a court finding that bonds are illegal/unenforceable will move to insistence that pilots take out personal loans or self finance their training and that this will in some way be ENFORCEABLE? If so, I suggest you might think again.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 01 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey Arty,
For a guy with 25 years experience - you really should know better! The suppply of pilots really is drying up and the ball is now on the other foot. There are enough people around who are happy to undermine your achievements - don't give them a helping hand. This kind of gentleman style submission is the very reason pilots have been and will continue to be exploited. If your new employer was any good he wouldn't have needed to bond you in the first place!
For a guy with 25 years experience - you really should know better! The suppply of pilots really is drying up and the ball is now on the other foot. There are enough people around who are happy to undermine your achievements - don't give them a helping hand. This kind of gentleman style submission is the very reason pilots have been and will continue to be exploited. If your new employer was any good he wouldn't have needed to bond you in the first place!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sapco2,
As I said earlier, to me a bond would be of no consequence unless I intended to break it and then I would be in a totally different situation. Knowing better doesn't come into it.
No-one is forced to sign up for one. As it happens I chose to accept the terms because I have a family to feed and put through school, as well as pay a mortgage and cannot afford to be unemployed even for a month.
I have signed, I'm getting paid, I'll be around for two years, then it's all done and I'm free to move on with another qualification if I wish. No problem, end of story.
Tilii, please stop looking for a story where there isn't one.
As I said earlier, to me a bond would be of no consequence unless I intended to break it and then I would be in a totally different situation. Knowing better doesn't come into it.
No-one is forced to sign up for one. As it happens I chose to accept the terms because I have a family to feed and put through school, as well as pay a mortgage and cannot afford to be unemployed even for a month.
I have signed, I'm getting paid, I'll be around for two years, then it's all done and I'm free to move on with another qualification if I wish. No problem, end of story.
Tilii, please stop looking for a story where there isn't one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Arty,
Of course your bond is of no consequence to you because you are obviously a gentleman and that's the whole point!
Pilots generally enter into these types of agreements knowing they have every intention to stay, particularly on the heavy metal. Your bond displays a complete lack of faith on the part of your employer.
Trust is a two way thing, you have shown conviction already by accepting the job whereas your employer has already revealed his lack of conviction in you. I would be wary of his motives because this type of restriction gives him the ability to control, manipulate and undermine you and there is very little you can do about it.
Bonding is outdated. A good employer does not need to do it and those that don't, seem to reap the benefits of good productivity and better employee loyalty.
Of course your bond is of no consequence to you because you are obviously a gentleman and that's the whole point!
Pilots generally enter into these types of agreements knowing they have every intention to stay, particularly on the heavy metal. Your bond displays a complete lack of faith on the part of your employer.
Trust is a two way thing, you have shown conviction already by accepting the job whereas your employer has already revealed his lack of conviction in you. I would be wary of his motives because this type of restriction gives him the ability to control, manipulate and undermine you and there is very little you can do about it.
Bonding is outdated. A good employer does not need to do it and those that don't, seem to reap the benefits of good productivity and better employee loyalty.
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii - of course it will be enforceable: either you'll enter into a personal loan with your bank or the employer - which will have equal status; or alternatively it will be a condition of employment that you either come rated or you pay for your own rating.
I'd be interested in your bank manager's reaction if you told him you weren't going to repay your personal loan because it was "unenforceable"!
I'd be interested in your bank manager's reaction if you told him you weren't going to repay your personal loan because it was "unenforceable"!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Arty
The major problem I have with your last post is that you assert that: "No-one is forced to sign up for one." That is far removed from the reality, and no need to expand on this for it is self-evident. As for your remark about looking for a story, are you under the mistaken impression that I'm a journalist?
Guv
Are we at cross purposes here? An employer will NEVER be in a position to FORCE a pilot to take a personal loan or to come to the job type rated. Naturally, employers are free to ask for this ... and we are free to tell them to take a running jump!!!
BTW, Guv, I'm a Libran too. I suspect this is all you and I will ever have in common, thank goodness.
The major problem I have with your last post is that you assert that: "No-one is forced to sign up for one." That is far removed from the reality, and no need to expand on this for it is self-evident. As for your remark about looking for a story, are you under the mistaken impression that I'm a journalist?
Guv
Are we at cross purposes here? An employer will NEVER be in a position to FORCE a pilot to take a personal loan or to come to the job type rated. Naturally, employers are free to ask for this ... and we are free to tell them to take a running jump!!!
BTW, Guv, I'm a Libran too. I suspect this is all you and I will ever have in common, thank goodness.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tilii,
In reply to your last;
a) I won't expand on it then except to say that each of us can choose to agree to a contract or not. I don't have a problem with mine.
b) No, that's your inference, not mine. You perhaps saw something that wasn't part of my intentions.
ArtyfisCH
In reply to your last;
a) I won't expand on it then except to say that each of us can choose to agree to a contract or not. I don't have a problem with mine.
b) No, that's your inference, not mine. You perhaps saw something that wasn't part of my intentions.
ArtyfisCH