Ethical question!!

[Bigsweetie]

Hey there,
My DH and I are having a aviation "ethical debate" and I need your input!!

This is all hypothetical...

My DH (as i'm sure many of your DH's) has signed a training contract with the company he currently works for. This contract will be up this December. The contract states that if he leaves voluntarily or is furloghed and wants to get a new aviation job before his contract is fulfilled, he must pay the company the training cost (pro-rated).

If he were to get furloughed and take a new job with another airline (assuming that the new airline would not pay out his training contract) my DH says that he will let his current company sue him for the money and hope that they either lose in court or not show up for the hearing at all and walk away scott free. He says that pilots do this all the time.

Question #1- Do pilots do this all the time? If so, please elaborate if possible.

Questions #2 - Do you feel that it is "ethical" to do this seeing as how your DH has signed a contract knowing full well that this was a possibility.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK!!

Thanks,

Tanya

[MQAAord]

[quote:3dd70772a4="Bigsweetie"]
Question #1- Do pilots do this all the time? If so, please elaborate if possible.

Questions #2 - Do you feel that it is "ethical" to do this seeing as how your DH has signed a contract knowing full well that this was a possibility.
[/quote:3dd70772a4]

I know training contracts are becoming more common, but my dh has never had one.


1- I have not heard of pilots refusing to pay the training costs, and letting themselves get sued. Seems to me if a company is going to require a pilot to sign a contract, they're going to enforce it, and they're going to show up to court!

2- No, I don't think it's ethical to go into a contract with the attitude of "well, I'll just do whatever I want anyway, no matter what I signed". That is the same thing that Delta Air Lines has done to their pilots. The pilots have a 'no furlough' clause in their contract, and the company knowingly violated this section of the contract. A contract is a legally binding agreement bewteen two parties, and if both parties sign the document, then both parties damn well better abide by it! If he doesn't like the terms of the contract, then don't sign it, don't agree to it, and if it's too late and he's already signed, well then, sorry. The terms of the contract were clearly spelled out, and he knew what he was getting into. Ask him how he would feel if he were running a company, and an employee did this same thing to him?

I apologize if I'm coming off a bit rough here, but after seeing what airline management has done to our labor contracts over the past couple years, it really burns me when someone (ANYONE, airline management, a pilot, whoever) knowingly violates a legally binding agreement.

[TheWife]

Well I'm kind of confused since I am not to this part of life yet and haven't had to deal with it. If I understand correctly, they are saying if they have to lay him off and he gets another job, then he would have to pay for training? That is LAME-O in my book but maybe I just don't understand! I mean, you don't "fire" some one and then turn around and try to recover your costs from them!

Any way, as far as contracts go, not all of them are really made to be fool proof. If you sign up for a health center membership, there is a clause in THEIR contract that say if you get hurt FOR ANY REASON, REGARDLESS OF WHO'S AT FAULT, while using their equipment, you can't sue them. Now obviously if an employee does something that caused you injury, you are going to sue them and you will win despite the conract. The clause is made to deter people, and to get them to commit up front to take responsibility for their safety. And it makes it SOUND like you couldn't sue them if you did get hurt and it was their fault. Which will deter some small and probably misfounded lawsuits, some people will take the contract as law and not bother with a suit. So basically, I think some contracts are made as a way to milk things from people or prevent them from milking you, if the people invovled don't bother to check into their legal rights.

As far as this situation goes-well it's tough, on one hand I do think if he knows up front that he would have to pay for it, well, then he did agree. But on the other hand, I think it's a LAME thing to do to a person right after they lose their job! I mean, isn't the training like more then $10K usually? So what are you supposed to do? Keep the first $10K he makes in a savings account "incase" he ever gets laid off? If he EARNED that money then I don't think he should have to ever pay it back!!

[lrcantrell]

I personally think if the company furloughs the pilot than all bets are off! You can't furlough a pilot and a) expect that they do not get another job or b) expect them to pay the remainder of their training contract. I think that's just the risk that a company takes with one of those contracts. On the pilots side, the risk is wanting to leave the company before the contract is up and having to pay out the remainder and on the company side, the risk is having to furlough the pilot and losing their part of the cost.

[MQAAord]

I fullly agree that it's crap that an employer would expect to be able to furlough a pilot and have the pilot pay training expenses if they take another flying job. I don't agree with the company making the pilot pay, I think that is bad business practice. It is however, fully stated in the pilot's contract, and is therefore legally binding, horseshit and all! One thing I've had to learn to deal with is living under crappy contracts, and knowing that you can't change a thing in that contract without negotations, and for whatever you want, you have to give up something in return.

At least the training costs they'll charage is pro-rata, so the pilot won't be paying [i:620be6f8cf]all[/i:620be6f8cf] the training costs.

[Bigsweetie]

Thanks for the input. I agree that my husbands attitude toward this issue sucks! Luckily he is not facing this issue currently, but the discussion came up and I was shocked at his response! I agree that the contract stinks, but he signed it! He justifies his response by saying how the airlines have mistreated pilots for so long, but I don't believe in "an eye for an eye", not to mention it would end up costing us a fortune...

He told me to ask you guys what you thought because he felt that I was way off-base and naive feeling the way that I did. I was more than a little surprised and disappointed in his response.

Anyway, thanks for backing me up ladies!!



Tanya

[roz]

Given that the contract is up in December, there would only be a few thousand dollars remaining. In your geographical area, the company would only have to put up $65 to file in Small Claims Court (the limit for the claim is $3,000 in your area). When they win (and they would), they would get a judgment against him. That will remain on his credit record until it is satisfied (paid in full, including costs). So, unless you never plan on buying anything ever again in your lives that involves credit, you are risking your ability to obtain financing at preferred rates.

Beyond that, if one's word is not worth anything, than what is?

[Kristie]

[quote:b49702c60d="Bigsweetie"]He justifies his response by saying how the airlines have mistreated pilots for so long, but I don't believe in "an eye for an eye", not to mention it would end up costing us a fortune...[/quote:b49702c60d]yeah, but going up to a judge and whining "well, management can do it, why can't i" won't fly in a court of law.. so he needs to get over that because his statement or possible conduct isn't justifiable in court.

however, if he were to get furloughed, then that would be the only reason i'd condone letting it go to court.. because the judge is going to understand that yes, it was a contract, but you didn't expect to get furloughed and you have mouths to feed in the house therefore, you HAD to find a new job. you'd have at least a slim possibility of winning the case with that reasoning...but there's always possibility that judge would come back with "contract is a contract" and there would be a cost, like Roz mentioned!! whether or not you'd really want to risk that, is in your hands.

but that's the only reason i'd go that route...as much as we all like an eye for an eye.. it just doesn't work in our judicial system.