Training Bonds - Fair or unfair?
The company I work for in "The Great White North"
has the following flight time training requirements for initial Hire or endorsement.
212 / 412 / 76 5 hrs and that is irrespective of you being endorsed or not.
So if we hire you or the next guy we still have to train you.
So why should I ask you to pay for it?
If we hire you it is because you have convinced us you want to work for us and because we want you to come and work for us. If we need you to sign a bond then we don't want you as an employee.
Just a sleazy money grab on the part of some operators. Especially when it is charged at full tariff!
Wishfull thinking on my part, perhaps, but my opinion anyhoo.
has the following flight time training requirements for initial Hire or endorsement.
212 / 412 / 76 5 hrs and that is irrespective of you being endorsed or not.
So if we hire you or the next guy we still have to train you.
So why should I ask you to pay for it?
If we hire you it is because you have convinced us you want to work for us and because we want you to come and work for us. If we need you to sign a bond then we don't want you as an employee.
Just a sleazy money grab on the part of some operators. Especially when it is charged at full tariff!
Wishfull thinking on my part, perhaps, but my opinion anyhoo.
Thread Starter
Tees,
I would take the job for 37 for the reasons albatross has stated. Here in Aust. the salaries are very much in line due to almost all companies choosing to pay the award. Obviously because it is peanuts so the only reason in most cases your salary will change from company to company is the nature of the work. The salary of course does increase a $1000 a year for each year of employment during which time you may earn your boss 50 times that in flying extra days for the love of it. Bit one sided yeah?
It's not just intercompany issues that need to be considered here. Personal commitments can also play a big part in this.
What happens when some Joe has signed a 2 year bond and 1 month later his personal situation takes a dramatic change that requires him to move on? Would you penalise him for that if he had been a long term employee of yours? Long term employees can clash with senior staff while others have no trouble and this could also be a reason for moving on. This can be no fault of either party just a result of the environment, personalities and circumstances. It just needs to be BALANCED a bit mate.
I would take the job for 37 for the reasons albatross has stated. Here in Aust. the salaries are very much in line due to almost all companies choosing to pay the award. Obviously because it is peanuts so the only reason in most cases your salary will change from company to company is the nature of the work. The salary of course does increase a $1000 a year for each year of employment during which time you may earn your boss 50 times that in flying extra days for the love of it. Bit one sided yeah?
It's not just intercompany issues that need to be considered here. Personal commitments can also play a big part in this.
What happens when some Joe has signed a 2 year bond and 1 month later his personal situation takes a dramatic change that requires him to move on? Would you penalise him for that if he had been a long term employee of yours? Long term employees can clash with senior staff while others have no trouble and this could also be a reason for moving on. This can be no fault of either party just a result of the environment, personalities and circumstances. It just needs to be BALANCED a bit mate.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Outback
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the mentality of the pilots in general have to change.
To sit and whinge that you have earnt money for the company by working your days off, more fool you.
When you are asking for a pay rise and he throws the Award at you, and states " if it's not in here, your not getting it". That's when you tell him/her don't call me on my days off, 10 days sick leave will be taken, I won't change my annual leave dates etc.
Don't sit and whinge like a school girl, we can't help you only you can.
My current package is over 100K ( car, house etc.). Why, because I whinge to the right people.
Cheers
To sit and whinge that you have earnt money for the company by working your days off, more fool you.
When you are asking for a pay rise and he throws the Award at you, and states " if it's not in here, your not getting it". That's when you tell him/her don't call me on my days off, 10 days sick leave will be taken, I won't change my annual leave dates etc.
Don't sit and whinge like a school girl, we can't help you only you can.
My current package is over 100K ( car, house etc.). Why, because I whinge to the right people.
Cheers
Bellfest
As I said in my first post, I don't believe there is justification for bonding a pilot for anything other than the first type conversion with the company and the instrument rating. So no, the long term employee would not be penalised.
While I would not accept signing a bond agreement and then doing the conversion on revenue flights, I am sympathetic to the companies that have trained pilots up and then seen them depart to sunnier climates a few months later.
TeeS
As I said in my first post, I don't believe there is justification for bonding a pilot for anything other than the first type conversion with the company and the instrument rating. So no, the long term employee would not be penalised.
While I would not accept signing a bond agreement and then doing the conversion on revenue flights, I am sympathetic to the companies that have trained pilots up and then seen them depart to sunnier climates a few months later.
TeeS
Thread Starter
Blade root,
I am not whinging to anyone. As i said I'm happy with my current position also and have learnt the hard way how to deal with these issues. This is a forum to discuss these issues for the benefit of everyone. I do agree with what you say, however there are companies out there that will not consider you as a future prospect unless you do so. It's all well and good when you've got the experience but it's not so easy to do that when you're starting out.
TeeS,
We agree on that then. I have made it clear that I am not refering to those who are joining a company and in need of training. I think from an employers point of view that it is a necassary precaution.
I am not whinging to anyone. As i said I'm happy with my current position also and have learnt the hard way how to deal with these issues. This is a forum to discuss these issues for the benefit of everyone. I do agree with what you say, however there are companies out there that will not consider you as a future prospect unless you do so. It's all well and good when you've got the experience but it's not so easy to do that when you're starting out.
TeeS,
We agree on that then. I have made it clear that I am not refering to those who are joining a company and in need of training. I think from an employers point of view that it is a necassary precaution.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training bonds.....hmmmm.
Consider.....if a company has a good enough reputation, they can pick and choose to a certain extent from the exceptional talent that is avaliable in the industry. The pilots will want to work for the company, no desire to get an endorsement and jump ship right away. The company wants that particular driver to stay so training and endorsements are no big deal. The driver wants the company, the company wants the driver, everyone is happy.
Now take a company from the bottom "good list" Pretty hard to attract the quality drivers in the first place.....the pilots may get their start, but then because of all the crap they are quick to jump ship....thus the need for the company to have the bond.
If a company has a spot to fill in a particular aircraft they have two choices. They can either hire a qualified driver, or they can train one. So when they approach a person with an offer of an endorsement, it should be because they want that person to do the job, they feel that person is the best option they have for the position, so in a situation like that....who needs who more?
For the companies that do have the bond in place....a choice between two pilots both have 2000 hours, both need an endorsement for the position. Pilot "A" got his start there, has done countless extra days etc....and pilot "B" is new to the company. Are they both expected to sign the same bond with no concession given for prior service?
In my neck of the wood in Canada....6 endorsements later (not including the initial R-22 training) and also a U.S. licence conversion (which required additional night flying) I have never come across the bond....all have been paid for by the company. My situation is the norm not the exception....
The idea that a company does the training while on a revenue flight and also expects the pilot to sign a bond that costs the company nothng is definaly double dipping. In Canada all VFR training, by law, is to be conducted non rev. Is there a similar rule down under?
Consider.....if a company has a good enough reputation, they can pick and choose to a certain extent from the exceptional talent that is avaliable in the industry. The pilots will want to work for the company, no desire to get an endorsement and jump ship right away. The company wants that particular driver to stay so training and endorsements are no big deal. The driver wants the company, the company wants the driver, everyone is happy.
Now take a company from the bottom "good list" Pretty hard to attract the quality drivers in the first place.....the pilots may get their start, but then because of all the crap they are quick to jump ship....thus the need for the company to have the bond.
If a company has a spot to fill in a particular aircraft they have two choices. They can either hire a qualified driver, or they can train one. So when they approach a person with an offer of an endorsement, it should be because they want that person to do the job, they feel that person is the best option they have for the position, so in a situation like that....who needs who more?
For the companies that do have the bond in place....a choice between two pilots both have 2000 hours, both need an endorsement for the position. Pilot "A" got his start there, has done countless extra days etc....and pilot "B" is new to the company. Are they both expected to sign the same bond with no concession given for prior service?
In my neck of the wood in Canada....6 endorsements later (not including the initial R-22 training) and also a U.S. licence conversion (which required additional night flying) I have never come across the bond....all have been paid for by the company. My situation is the norm not the exception....
The idea that a company does the training while on a revenue flight and also expects the pilot to sign a bond that costs the company nothng is definaly double dipping. In Canada all VFR training, by law, is to be conducted non rev. Is there a similar rule down under?
Your employer comes to you, and asks what your plans are for the next couple of years as he wants another BK driver (10 hours + some role training), asks you are you interested and would you hang around for a couple of years to give him a return on his investment, be honest. Good oportunity for you, known driver for him. Its fair to give back what you get, but bonding a pilot, which the employer needs, for 2 years because of a single turbine endorsement is rubbish. Why does he need to bond someone? Is there a high staff turn over? If you join a company and they are prepared to spend some money on you, it is only fair to stay for a reasonable time and return that investment. You leave on good terms and also have a reputation as doing the right thing. There is a good thread on this on the Godzone and Downunnda forum where a pilot was given a Dash 8 rating then jumped ship, only to take her former employer to court when he wanted payed back. In this case he was well justified.
Tried to find it but no luck.
Tried to find it but no luck.
Thread Starter
It does seem that the companies who take a liking to the bond are those that have trouble keeping staff. They should be looking at other options instead of trying to tie their pilots down. ie-Letting them work to a roster that gives them a life! Being tied down with a bond after putting in the hard yards only makes the matter worse.
It makes it all a bit harder when a few individuals spoil it for everyone else by getting an endorsement then moving straight on to greener pastures. This is rare and the company has to be a bit smarter about who they choose and how they treat their staff.
There is no requirement in Aust. for training to be non-rev. which is no drama if companies aren't trying to pull this caper. It is a low margin profit and to be able to do an endorsement on a revenue flight is a good thing but anyone who would charge the pilot at the same time would steal the false teeth right out of their grandmothers mouth.
Companies need to realise in these cases that there is a culture problem that needs to be addressed not a financial one.
It makes it all a bit harder when a few individuals spoil it for everyone else by getting an endorsement then moving straight on to greener pastures. This is rare and the company has to be a bit smarter about who they choose and how they treat their staff.
There is no requirement in Aust. for training to be non-rev. which is no drama if companies aren't trying to pull this caper. It is a low margin profit and to be able to do an endorsement on a revenue flight is a good thing but anyone who would charge the pilot at the same time would steal the false teeth right out of their grandmothers mouth.
Companies need to realise in these cases that there is a culture problem that needs to be addressed not a financial one.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been watching this thread with interest as I have just returned to a company that incorporates a bond system.
I was, until recently, against the idea of bonding.....but.... my postion has changed somewhat due to the fact that the there are two sides to bonding.
On the one side, you are commited to the company for the set period, if you leave before that time then you pay a pro rata amount back to the company. The company is protected finacially.
On the other side, if your circumstances change, you CAN leave the company, paying the pro rata amount and there are no hard feelings.
The problem with some employers, in particular small operators, is that there is no measure on the MORAL return of service. It could be 2 years or 10. If you leave a company that has endorsed you on a type, there is no way of knowing if it is the "appropriate" amount of time or not.... you risk being branded a "pin puller", or "ticket collector" if for some reason your 50 years of service is deemed to be not enough to that employer.
With a bond, you have the ability to leave if you need to without the moral obligation of a return of service. This can be an extremely good thing, as there is no come back from the company.... it was their idea.
Cheers
rotorque
I was, until recently, against the idea of bonding.....but.... my postion has changed somewhat due to the fact that the there are two sides to bonding.
On the one side, you are commited to the company for the set period, if you leave before that time then you pay a pro rata amount back to the company. The company is protected finacially.
On the other side, if your circumstances change, you CAN leave the company, paying the pro rata amount and there are no hard feelings.
The problem with some employers, in particular small operators, is that there is no measure on the MORAL return of service. It could be 2 years or 10. If you leave a company that has endorsed you on a type, there is no way of knowing if it is the "appropriate" amount of time or not.... you risk being branded a "pin puller", or "ticket collector" if for some reason your 50 years of service is deemed to be not enough to that employer.
With a bond, you have the ability to leave if you need to without the moral obligation of a return of service. This can be an extremely good thing, as there is no come back from the company.... it was their idea.
Cheers
rotorque
Thread Starter
That is true, there is a certain benefit in being able to cut loose with no ties. As you say you have just returned to the company so therefore any prior recognition on your part is null and void as would long service entitlements.
How would you feel if you hadn't left to begin with and you were a long term employee?
Would you feel that you deserve some credit for your past efforts?
Would you be prepared to pay the some bond as someone who has just joined the company?
I don't agree with those that obtain ratings and then move on just like the next bloke but in most cases (depending on the individual) in GA you earn a lot more than your salary and that should be incorporated into the bond.
2 pilots
1 just joined, 1 employed for 5 years
Both requiring an CPIFR
I would say a fair thing would be a 2 year bond for the new guy and 1 year for the other bloke.
In a fair world where every extra day was taken later in luie and extra duties were rewarded than it would make more sense. I thought that the endorsements and progression was the reward.
That type of culture would see a lot more people sticking around.
Lets face it, sesame seed chicken legs just don't cut it!!!
How would you feel if you hadn't left to begin with and you were a long term employee?
Would you feel that you deserve some credit for your past efforts?
Would you be prepared to pay the some bond as someone who has just joined the company?
I don't agree with those that obtain ratings and then move on just like the next bloke but in most cases (depending on the individual) in GA you earn a lot more than your salary and that should be incorporated into the bond.
2 pilots
1 just joined, 1 employed for 5 years
Both requiring an CPIFR
I would say a fair thing would be a 2 year bond for the new guy and 1 year for the other bloke.
In a fair world where every extra day was taken later in luie and extra duties were rewarded than it would make more sense. I thought that the endorsements and progression was the reward.
That type of culture would see a lot more people sticking around.
Lets face it, sesame seed chicken legs just don't cut it!!!
Sorry Bellfest - but are you saying that you agree with the idea of a Bond and are now proposing "rules" for the application of same?
If so when do you think that you should stop this bonding process?
At 1000 hrs? 10000? 20000?
We give engineers endorsements on different types. Should they be forced to sign a bond?
We go to sim training every year should I sign a bond for a year every time I go to the sim? Night Currency - bond for another 6 months. How about for HUET?
If so when do you think that you should stop this bonding process?
At 1000 hrs? 10000? 20000?
We give engineers endorsements on different types. Should they be forced to sign a bond?
We go to sim training every year should I sign a bond for a year every time I go to the sim? Night Currency - bond for another 6 months. How about for HUET?
Thread Starter
albatross,
I personally don't agree with the bonding process at all. I think if a company is decent enough and chooses wisely than there should be no need for it. I think it is an obvious business mentality to protect investment but I don't think it is the right way to do it.
I just think that if companies do insist on implementing the bond then they should abide by some ground rules to make it fairer for the employee instead of being indescriminate and one sided.
Where it starts and stops comes down to the company I guess. Again if they insisted on a bond then it should be limited to the more substantial endorsements/ratings. I don't think hours should play a big part in it but term of employment should.
Rotorque pointed out that it makes it easier for the employee also to part company if required but if the employee had a conciense about the issue of leaving than they could offer to pay for the training without being tied to a bond.
I personally don't agree with the bonding process at all. I think if a company is decent enough and chooses wisely than there should be no need for it. I think it is an obvious business mentality to protect investment but I don't think it is the right way to do it.
I just think that if companies do insist on implementing the bond then they should abide by some ground rules to make it fairer for the employee instead of being indescriminate and one sided.
Where it starts and stops comes down to the company I guess. Again if they insisted on a bond then it should be limited to the more substantial endorsements/ratings. I don't think hours should play a big part in it but term of employment should.
Rotorque pointed out that it makes it easier for the employee also to part company if required but if the employee had a conciense about the issue of leaving than they could offer to pay for the training without being tied to a bond.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what if all the chosen pilots for the endoresment just say no to the bond.....what happens then?
Do they try and attract lower time drivers ....or those that perhaps dont have the right aptitude for the position, maybe not the right candidate for the job?
I suppose the flaw in this senario is that there are enough of us hungry for the endorsement and there will always be someone that will go for it.....
Do they try and attract lower time drivers ....or those that perhaps dont have the right aptitude for the position, maybe not the right candidate for the job?
I suppose the flaw in this senario is that there are enough of us hungry for the endorsement and there will always be someone that will go for it.....
Thread Starter
The reason the bonding process is possible is because there are those out there that would sign their scrotum away for 2 years for an IF or twin endorsement.
If someone was to refuse signing a bond then each company would deal with it differently I guess. I would never sign another one, not in a pink fit. I would be more than happy to verbally commit to a period of employment ,subject to being treated fairly and looked after by the company and in that case I would stand by my word.
You could find yourself working for a company that is nothing like what it seems and far from what you expected.
Remember when you are looking at it the grass is still green.
Blade root mentioned earlier in this thread that you should just read the riot act when you are presented with the basic award and he's dead right. That is probably easier to do in a small company than it is in a big one when there is others around you who don't.
Who do you think will be selected for a promotion when they need another twin pilot? Certainly won't be the bloke who says no when he's asked to work a day off.
Those that are prepared to go the extra mile would also be willing to sign a bond and they shouldn't have to.
If someone was to refuse signing a bond then each company would deal with it differently I guess. I would never sign another one, not in a pink fit. I would be more than happy to verbally commit to a period of employment ,subject to being treated fairly and looked after by the company and in that case I would stand by my word.
You could find yourself working for a company that is nothing like what it seems and far from what you expected.
Remember when you are looking at it the grass is still green.
Blade root mentioned earlier in this thread that you should just read the riot act when you are presented with the basic award and he's dead right. That is probably easier to do in a small company than it is in a big one when there is others around you who don't.
Who do you think will be selected for a promotion when they need another twin pilot? Certainly won't be the bloke who says no when he's asked to work a day off.
Those that are prepared to go the extra mile would also be willing to sign a bond and they shouldn't have to.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South of 60
Age: 61
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any operator that chooses to go down the "bonding" road is either a) greedy or b) insecure in its ability to retain its own staff.
Think about it, we all spend an incredible amount of our own personal cash just to get the license so we can join in this little game called helicopters. It's part of our cost of doing business if we want to be pilots in the first place. We've done OUR part.
Now then, nobody ever held a gun to any operator's head and said "you WILL choose helicopters as the way to earn your income." Each operator became involved in the business under their own free will. Once they became involved, certain absolutes/unchangeables came into play, not the least of which being, if you want to operate helicopters, you MUST have pilots on staff to fly them. This is part of THEIR cost of doing business as an operator.
So what kind of a message is an operator sending when they demand you sign a bond of any type just to work for them? They are telling you that they are inherently distrustful of anyone they hire and will go to any length to make you feel you are a prisoner within their employ. An operator who feels training bonds are necessary does not have your best interests in mind, not by a long shot.
And it gets better. Allow me to share with you life at my company with respect to training bonds. The local authority demands all flight crew here attend the simulator once each year. Somehow, our fast-talking management was able to convince the authority it would be ok to send us once every TWO years. In the off year from the simulator, however, the company is supposed to provide us with comparable in-house training. I'll leave you all to guess if we actually receive any proper training in our off year from the sim.
But I digress. So yeah, it is a REQUIREMENT from the local authority that our pilots attend the simulator. This is not discretionary training on the part of our company. They MUST send us and have no choice in the matter. Well, a couple of years ago the "brains" of the company gets it into their heads they will start bonding pilots for one year after they attend the simulator. Which brings us to a whole new level of brain-dead thinking on the subject of training bonds. You guys are talking about being bonded for a NEW rating. How would you like to sign an agreement each time you completed a base-check??? That is effectively what is happening where I work.
Operators think they are protecting themselves by insisting employees sign training bonds for all kinds of useless reasons. In reality, they are just pushing their own staff to find increasingly more creative ways to shaft the operator right back.
Rant over.
Think about it, we all spend an incredible amount of our own personal cash just to get the license so we can join in this little game called helicopters. It's part of our cost of doing business if we want to be pilots in the first place. We've done OUR part.
Now then, nobody ever held a gun to any operator's head and said "you WILL choose helicopters as the way to earn your income." Each operator became involved in the business under their own free will. Once they became involved, certain absolutes/unchangeables came into play, not the least of which being, if you want to operate helicopters, you MUST have pilots on staff to fly them. This is part of THEIR cost of doing business as an operator.
So what kind of a message is an operator sending when they demand you sign a bond of any type just to work for them? They are telling you that they are inherently distrustful of anyone they hire and will go to any length to make you feel you are a prisoner within their employ. An operator who feels training bonds are necessary does not have your best interests in mind, not by a long shot.
And it gets better. Allow me to share with you life at my company with respect to training bonds. The local authority demands all flight crew here attend the simulator once each year. Somehow, our fast-talking management was able to convince the authority it would be ok to send us once every TWO years. In the off year from the simulator, however, the company is supposed to provide us with comparable in-house training. I'll leave you all to guess if we actually receive any proper training in our off year from the sim.
But I digress. So yeah, it is a REQUIREMENT from the local authority that our pilots attend the simulator. This is not discretionary training on the part of our company. They MUST send us and have no choice in the matter. Well, a couple of years ago the "brains" of the company gets it into their heads they will start bonding pilots for one year after they attend the simulator. Which brings us to a whole new level of brain-dead thinking on the subject of training bonds. You guys are talking about being bonded for a NEW rating. How would you like to sign an agreement each time you completed a base-check??? That is effectively what is happening where I work.
Operators think they are protecting themselves by insisting employees sign training bonds for all kinds of useless reasons. In reality, they are just pushing their own staff to find increasingly more creative ways to shaft the operator right back.
Rant over.
I don't think bonding carries any legal jurisdiction, you know.
It is a widely held belief that this bonding is normal for some companies.
We tried it on the last recruitment bout but were advised that it is not legally binding when things go wrong.
The only situation where 'a bond' is legally acceptable is where the prospective employee is going to learn/access confidential/commercially sensitive/secret information.
It is a widely held belief that this bonding is normal for some companies.
We tried it on the last recruitment bout but were advised that it is not legally binding when things go wrong.
The only situation where 'a bond' is legally acceptable is where the prospective employee is going to learn/access confidential/commercially sensitive/secret information.
Thread Starter
I have heard that more than once before. But there you go, they're are still out there doing it when in reality it's not worth the paper it's written on.
Not only is the concept foolish it's dodgy as well.
Not only is the concept foolish it's dodgy as well.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bellfest,
In my early days, I often weighed up the idea of getting a 412 endorsement after being told that you were guaranteed a job in the UAE if you had one. I could easily justify the expense given that I would earn twice the amount in the first year........ its an easy equation.
With bonding, it is effectively the same thing. An employer is guaranteeing you a job if you "buy" an endorsement, albeit payed in sweat and tears and daily cosumption of jelly chicken legs.
If someone agrees to 'purchase that ticket' then there really is no recourse.
That being said, there may be other reasons why an employer resorts to bonding. It could well be a person in a management position (operations, chief pilot, check and training, engineering) that is the cause of pilot resignations and not the buisness itself. An employee with all the good intentions of doing the right thing by the guy who has given them a job may well be faced with a demorolizing bunch of crooks at the helm, hell bent on keeping their own positions secure.... It is very hard in this day and age to remove bad eggs when they are in nich' positions.
In my early days, I often weighed up the idea of getting a 412 endorsement after being told that you were guaranteed a job in the UAE if you had one. I could easily justify the expense given that I would earn twice the amount in the first year........ its an easy equation.
With bonding, it is effectively the same thing. An employer is guaranteeing you a job if you "buy" an endorsement, albeit payed in sweat and tears and daily cosumption of jelly chicken legs.
If someone agrees to 'purchase that ticket' then there really is no recourse.
That being said, there may be other reasons why an employer resorts to bonding. It could well be a person in a management position (operations, chief pilot, check and training, engineering) that is the cause of pilot resignations and not the buisness itself. An employee with all the good intentions of doing the right thing by the guy who has given them a job may well be faced with a demorolizing bunch of crooks at the helm, hell bent on keeping their own positions secure.... It is very hard in this day and age to remove bad eggs when they are in nich' positions.
Thread Starter
rotorque,
These bad apples can be an asset to the company in some cases. Due to their own defective personality they are willing to abuse the willingness of the high achiever to get the job done as efficiently as possible for the employer.
In these cases the company isn't prepared to address the real issue because it will hinder their productivity and ability to get the maximum work done with the least amount of pilots.
Instead they introduce a bond to solve the high turnover of staff they have suffered in the past and tie people down to what could or couldn't be a **** few years thanks to a defective yet productive personality steering the boat.
Sounds awfully familiar!
It takes all kinds.......
These bad apples can be an asset to the company in some cases. Due to their own defective personality they are willing to abuse the willingness of the high achiever to get the job done as efficiently as possible for the employer.
In these cases the company isn't prepared to address the real issue because it will hinder their productivity and ability to get the maximum work done with the least amount of pilots.
Instead they introduce a bond to solve the high turnover of staff they have suffered in the past and tie people down to what could or couldn't be a **** few years thanks to a defective yet productive personality steering the boat.
Sounds awfully familiar!
It takes all kinds.......