6 ms·

There are rare cases, it is worth remembering, where the training is extremely expensive (both in cost and in time before the employee is a contributing product

There are rare cases, it is worth remembering, where the training is extremely expensive (both in cost and in time before the employee is a contributing productive worker) and not available in the public market. To spend $10K or more on those early unproductive phases and then have them leave sucks.

maxehmookau 4y ago
Yeah, it does suck. Sometimes doing business sucks. Holding on to your employees against their will in return for money also sucks for everyone involved.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  I would argue a little bit contrary. Expensive training by the business is an investment in you. If you sign up for the training, you are telling the business that you will return their investment and benefit them. Thus, there is a degree to which leaving immediately after expensive training can be seen as theft. This might not gain much sympathy when talking of mega corporations, but consider 48% of US Jobs are for small businesses, where the theft of your training can be much more real. Edit: If I am a small business, imagine I had 10 employees. Training for a niche industry may be much more expensive because I can’t afford to have a standardized training program, and some employees have to be unproductive to teach the new employee how to be productive. Imagine this costs $8K, and then the employee leaves. Sucks. Now imagine 8 people in a row did this.
  - frumper 4y ago
    There is a reason they’re quitting. Could be the pay is low, or they don’t like the job. Maybe they aren’t very good at it after all. Throw in some sick parents they need to take care of and top it off with a manager that is awful to work for. Holding a financial gun to someone’s head isn’t a good way to handle this for anyone. What if someone gets fired, do they have to repay it?
    - gjsman-1000 4y ago
      If they knew the terms of the deal, knew the cost of their training, and agreed, it is exactly like if you joined college and changed your major in my eyes. You don’t get off the hook for those bills because you changed your mind, and you knew what you were getting into.
      - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
        Changing a major doesn't occur financial penalties, and colleges also allow you to take extremely extended leaves (3+ months, aka a semester/quarter) for emergencies as a normal point of cause and your education credits don't expire for several years (I think a decade?) so if an emergency happens you can step away and return even years later with fairly minimal penalty academically. Credits aren't even charged if you quit early enough IIRC.
        stonemetal12 4y ago
        If you took out a loan to pay tuition, the loans don't disappear. Isn't this basically the same thing? The employer is loaning you the money to cover training with loan forgiveness for time worked.
        frumper 4y ago
        Schools are highly regulated. Loans are highly regulated. Education from colleges is accredited and held accountable to third party institutions. Employers training you then charging you isn't regulated at all. It's ripe for abuse and clearly abuse is taking place to the woman in the article.
        PuppyTailWags 4y ago
        No, because the employer isn't loaning you money. In fact it would make much more sense if the employer gave the employee money as a lump sum in exchange for some agreement, much like a relocation or signing bonus. Instead this is the employer pretending its training is worth real money on the real market. In the Reuters article, an esthecian was charged nearly 2k for leaving a shitty job because of "training", despite already independently having the license necessary to do the job and no one reasonably paying that beauty parlor 2k to be educated. Additionally, certain education-related loans do in fact disappear! Loan forgiveness is a real thing.
  - Kon-Peki 4y ago
    > If you sign up for the training, you are telling the business that you will return their investment and benefit them. Is the business offering a similar guarantee to the employee?
    - randomdata 4y ago
      I don't imagine businesses are expending these capital costs with the intention of closing up shop the next day. So, yes, clearly.
      - FireBeyond 4y ago
        Hah, what? I have watched personally multiple household name companies go on hiring sprees when layoffs, that those line and department managers were aware of, were imminent. Tacoma FD for one locally high visibility action: Advertised for the hiring of 30-44 firefighters. Had a few thousand applicants. Rented the Tacoma Dome for several days for testing applicants. Went through the selection process, got their candidates, put them through nearly six months of full-time training. They all graduate from Academy... ... and come to their station the next morning to get a pink slip. They literally trained these people and let them go the moment they finished training, before they could do one day of actual work. Because there was no budget to pay them. A budget that had been signed off by the City nearly six months -before- the hiring process began.
        randomdata 4y ago
        What, what? Intention doesn't mean things can't go wrong. A lot can go wrong as time marches forward and your expectations turn out to be incorrect. Tacoma FD no doubt intended to keep those firefighters on staff, even if it didn't work out that way in the end. A business won't necessarily realize benefit from training, but they do offer a similar guarantee to the workers that they may also not realize a benefit. If things turn out as planned, both will benefit. Benefit is not without risk. Those who can't handle the risk seek shelter elsewhere. Such is life.
  - csydas 4y ago
    Your point is understood, but at the same time, if it's not a recognized certification that is applicable to other jobs and positions, then it's a preference of the business, not a business need. The employer decided to make this a requirement for their employees, that is their decision and they should accept the cost. More simply put, if it's not something that is readily verifiable and accepted by any other business in the same category, then I understand this as the employers' _choice_ to give their employees this business. Would we consider the same reimbursement scheme for coffee/snacks and restroom breaks? These also are on paid time which costs the employer, but I don't think (yet) employers are trying to recoup such costs. If we were talking about professional certifications, I would maybe understand some commitment agreement from the employees, but the trainings described are shop specific as per the article. I would not agree that this should require repayment, and seems the courts agree as well.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    The fundamental trade businesses make with employees is that they remove risk from the employee's life in return for removing the potential rewards that come from having a successful business. If you add back a component of risk, you are making the trade a lot less attractive.
  - Buttons840 4y ago
    Do these small companies want employees who feign incompetence and "quiet quit"? Because paying for training is no guarantee the employee will be a profitable one, contract or not.
  - xivzgrev 4y ago
    There could be room for that. But the article cites several examples not like that, particularly training that employees consider rudimentary or already covering what they already know. It sounds like bullshit because it is - employers are trying to get employees to stay, and some use a stick to do so.
  - wing-_-nuts 4y ago
    >Training for a niche industry may be much more expensive because I can’t afford to have a standardized training program, and some employees have to be unproductive to teach the new employee how to be productive. I vehemently disagree with this. If your training is so niche as to not be standardized (and thus, have value in the marketplace), you absolutely should not get to go after the employee. If they leave? Tough. Work on retainment if you wish your company to be successful. With this line of reasoning, every business down to restaurants with fry cooks could argue they are imparting valuable wisdom and thus hold their employees indentured. This is not some hypothetical to me. My ancestors were indentured servants to the Jamestown colony.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      > My ancestors were indentured servants to the Jamestown colony So what? This affects your life how?
      - wing-_-nuts 4y ago
        It's impossible for me to take this question in good faith if you have any reading comprehension at all.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    > If you sign up for the training IF. In many of these cases, employees show up, are told that they are "required" to undergo training that the company has now enrolled them in and that they will be required to repay.
- leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
  You mean when the employee voluntarily agrees to the terms of the contract? I have seen when employees take advantage of job training and then immediately bounce when their contract expires for that. They used 6months of code camp training while being paid, and as soon as they could they left. If those contracts were not allowed, there wouldn't be a company willing to pay for that. When you sign a lease you usually can't break the lease without penalty.yes, if a company makes up the training costs for in house training, making it astronomical, then that seems like it'd be up for litigation.
  - deadbunny 4y ago
    I'm assuming* they all bounced as soon as they could because with their newly acquired skills they could go get vastly more money. I'm also assuming the employer refused to up their pay to "market rates" because, hey they invested in them, they should stick around (for below market rate) because we're all a big family and we invest in our family. * Assumption based on the exact scenario happening every fucking time
  - adrianN 4y ago
    Employees voluntarily agreeing to contracts means very little without a lot of context. Generally speaking the power differential between companies and employees is too great for any meaningful "voluntary" action on the part of employees.
    - zo1 4y ago
      Let's all not forget the most "voluntary" contract of all: the "social contract" between the lowly individual and the all-powerful state. Apparently there wasn't a power differential there, right? Purely consensual and I had full choice in not signing it.
      - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        Okay, but the social contract defends you from the violence of everyone else starting a few months before you're actually born. Sure, it might not be a great contract even given that, and I agree it should be easier to shop around the social contract you want (or that there should be the option not to have one a la seasteading). But given how much it provides before someone is able to understand the terms of a contract like that, it makes sense for it to be opt-in.
- refurb 4y ago
  It's a contract. Don't sign it if you don't like the terms.
  - nucleogenesis 4y ago
    Of course - if you want to eat and have a house and make money and your options are limited due to the lack of any societal norm that people should be cared for and you weren’t privileged to have opportunities to or the the ability to develop skills that are worth money — then you should just be homeless instead of signing yourself into 10s of thousands of dollars of debt to a corporation. Or you should be grateful for the opportunity to be contractually enslaved?
    - refurb 4y ago
      Are you saying semi-skilled jobs are hard to come by? That the woman in the article that was a hairdresser couldn't possibly find another hairdressing job? The other example from the article was nursing. Nursing is in huge demand. That woman most certainly had other options. I worked in Europe. My contract said my company had to give me 3 months notice before quitting. And I had to give 3 months notice before quitting. If I didn't, I had to pay the company the equivalent of 1 months salary for each month of notice I didn't give. So if I just up and quit, I'd have to pay 3 months salary. Was I a "indentured servant" too?
      - Buttons840 4y ago
        > Nursing is in huge demand. That woman most certainly had other options. Part of the problem is the people creating the contracts are perfectly willing to place the burden on existing nurses and allow patients to suffer. Even when already short staffed, hospitals are not under much pressure to renegotiate a contract.
      - AlexandrB 4y ago
        > And I had to give 3 months notice before quitting. That's pretty crazy. So if you apply to a new job you have to tell them: "I can start 3 months from now, no sooner"? Edit: This kind of clause seems so counter-productive to the employer. If I was forced to give 3 months notice, I'd be checked out for 2/3+ of that time. What are they going to do? Fire me?
karpierz 4y ago
It does suck. It's also the nature of business, speculative investment. Sometimes you invest capital in something and don't see returns. If you want the employee to own the capital costs, then they better see capital returns as well.
- noir_lord 4y ago
  But what is capitalism for if I'm not guaranteed a profit (says every large corporation)? You are right though in that's its just another way to socialise the costs and privatise the profits.
- gruez 4y ago
  > It does suck. It's also the nature of business, speculative investment. Sometimes you invest capital in something and don't see returns. By this logic, should the government also stop helping banks collect debts (eg. garnishing wages or seizing property)? After all, lending is also a "speculative investment" and "Sometimes you invest capital in something and don't see returns".
  - nonameiguess 4y ago
    Failing to pay a debt is illegal. Quitting a job is a fundamental requirement of freely competitive labor markets that the social benefits of capitalism are predicated on.
    - gruez 4y ago
      >Failing to pay a debt is illegal. okay but how is that relevant to this discussion? if the state refuses to assist in debt collection, it effectively makes failing to pay debts legal, which seems to be what you want?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - picsao 4y ago
michael_miller 4y ago
To give a specific example in this case.. a type rating to fly a Gulfstream business jet is on the order of $100,000. If a pilot works for a few months and quits, the employer is out a pretty significant chunk of change. An alternative arrangement to direct employment is that the pilot could pay for his/her own type rating, and work as a contract pilot. But that requires having $100k to plunk down, and taking the risk that the job market will be strong after the type rating. In this case, the employee may prefer the "indentured servitude" route versus having to front 6 figures to get their own type rating.
- kritiko 4y ago
  Where would the pilot be going in this example? Presumably to fly other planes, so even if the employer eats the cost of training, they're supporting the overall job market for pilots. If the pilot is unable to work because of disability, conviction, etc., they're 6 figures in the hole and unable to use the training to get out. Seems like a pretty bad deal.
  - coredog64 4y ago
    Tell me about it. My wife attended ERAU to get this training and got a permanent medical disqualification about a year after graduating.
- scrapcode 4y ago
  Contracts that include the employer footing the bill for professional (transferable) licensure are an entirely different thing than discussed in this article, and I think it's reasonable to have some kind of agreement. Even then, I'm not sure I feel sorry for the employer if something like this were to happen as the requirement to even provide this training would be due to market requirements. Many pilots spend a large chunk of their lives paying for their own training and working underpaid jobs (banner tow, instructing) just because it allows them seat time without it deducting from their bank account. Of course many other factors would sway my opinion of the matter into different directions. Who made the decision to change the fleet to Gulfstream multi-engine jets versus single-engine, or from flying cargo to adding the option to carry passengers, etc. Was the pilot already part of the company when these new qualification requirements were added, etc?
PaywallBuster 4y ago
skinnymuch 4y ago
Yeah it sucks. For corporations. How about for the actual human employees? Does it not suck to have to stay at a job because paying for training would be too much? Rules should help humans not corporations .
rdtwo 4y ago
I mean training employees is always expensive. If you create an environment where they quit after 2 months then you probably need to fix that. While indentured servitude is a solution it’s not one we should have to entertain
- ticviking 4y ago
  Paying market wages for those skills and having predictable schedules goes a long way to improving retention.
picsao 4y ago
jonnycomputer 4y ago
Sure. But employees pay the costs of these sorts of inconveniences all the time too. Especially in fire-at-will US states.

maxehmookau 4y ago

Yeah, it does suck. Sometimes doing business sucks. Holding on to your employees against their will in return for money also sucks for everyone involved.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
I would argue a little bit contrary. Expensive training by the business is an investment in you. If you sign up for the training, you are telling the business that you will return their investment and benefit them. Thus, there is a degree to which leaving immediately after expensive training can be seen as theft. This might not gain much sympathy when talking of mega corporations, but consider 48% of US Jobs are for small businesses, where the theft of your training can be much more real. Edit: If I am a small business, imagine I had 10 employees. Training for a niche industry may be much more expensive because I can’t afford to have a standardized training program, and some employees have to be unproductive to teach the new employee how to be productive. Imagine this costs $8K, and then the employee leaves. Sucks. Now imagine 8 people in a row did this.
- frumper 4y ago
  There is a reason they’re quitting. Could be the pay is low, or they don’t like the job. Maybe they aren’t very good at it after all. Throw in some sick parents they need to take care of and top it off with a manager that is awful to work for. Holding a financial gun to someone’s head isn’t a good way to handle this for anyone. What if someone gets fired, do they have to repay it?
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    If they knew the terms of the deal, knew the cost of their training, and agreed, it is exactly like if you joined college and changed your major in my eyes. You don’t get off the hook for those bills because you changed your mind, and you knew what you were getting into.
    - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      Changing a major doesn't occur financial penalties, and colleges also allow you to take extremely extended leaves (3+ months, aka a semester/quarter) for emergencies as a normal point of cause and your education credits don't expire for several years (I think a decade?) so if an emergency happens you can step away and return even years later with fairly minimal penalty academically. Credits aren't even charged if you quit early enough IIRC.
      - stonemetal12 4y ago
        If you took out a loan to pay tuition, the loans don't disappear. Isn't this basically the same thing? The employer is loaning you the money to cover training with loan forgiveness for time worked.
        frumper 4y ago
        Schools are highly regulated. Loans are highly regulated. Education from colleges is accredited and held accountable to third party institutions. Employers training you then charging you isn't regulated at all. It's ripe for abuse and clearly abuse is taking place to the woman in the article.
        PuppyTailWags 4y ago
        No, because the employer isn't loaning you money. In fact it would make much more sense if the employer gave the employee money as a lump sum in exchange for some agreement, much like a relocation or signing bonus. Instead this is the employer pretending its training is worth real money on the real market. In the Reuters article, an esthecian was charged nearly 2k for leaving a shitty job because of "training", despite already independently having the license necessary to do the job and no one reasonably paying that beauty parlor 2k to be educated. Additionally, certain education-related loans do in fact disappear! Loan forgiveness is a real thing.
- Kon-Peki 4y ago
  > If you sign up for the training, you are telling the business that you will return their investment and benefit them. Is the business offering a similar guarantee to the employee?
  - randomdata 4y ago
    I don't imagine businesses are expending these capital costs with the intention of closing up shop the next day. So, yes, clearly.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      Hah, what? I have watched personally multiple household name companies go on hiring sprees when layoffs, that those line and department managers were aware of, were imminent. Tacoma FD for one locally high visibility action: Advertised for the hiring of 30-44 firefighters. Had a few thousand applicants. Rented the Tacoma Dome for several days for testing applicants. Went through the selection process, got their candidates, put them through nearly six months of full-time training. They all graduate from Academy... ... and come to their station the next morning to get a pink slip. They literally trained these people and let them go the moment they finished training, before they could do one day of actual work. Because there was no budget to pay them. A budget that had been signed off by the City nearly six months -before- the hiring process began.
      - randomdata 4y ago
        What, what? Intention doesn't mean things can't go wrong. A lot can go wrong as time marches forward and your expectations turn out to be incorrect. Tacoma FD no doubt intended to keep those firefighters on staff, even if it didn't work out that way in the end. A business won't necessarily realize benefit from training, but they do offer a similar guarantee to the workers that they may also not realize a benefit. If things turn out as planned, both will benefit. Benefit is not without risk. Those who can't handle the risk seek shelter elsewhere. Such is life.
- csydas 4y ago
  Your point is understood, but at the same time, if it's not a recognized certification that is applicable to other jobs and positions, then it's a preference of the business, not a business need. The employer decided to make this a requirement for their employees, that is their decision and they should accept the cost. More simply put, if it's not something that is readily verifiable and accepted by any other business in the same category, then I understand this as the employers' _choice_ to give their employees this business. Would we consider the same reimbursement scheme for coffee/snacks and restroom breaks? These also are on paid time which costs the employer, but I don't think (yet) employers are trying to recoup such costs. If we were talking about professional certifications, I would maybe understand some commitment agreement from the employees, but the trainings described are shop specific as per the article. I would not agree that this should require repayment, and seems the courts agree as well.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  The fundamental trade businesses make with employees is that they remove risk from the employee's life in return for removing the potential rewards that come from having a successful business. If you add back a component of risk, you are making the trade a lot less attractive.
- Buttons840 4y ago
  Do these small companies want employees who feign incompetence and "quiet quit"? Because paying for training is no guarantee the employee will be a profitable one, contract or not.
- xivzgrev 4y ago
  There could be room for that. But the article cites several examples not like that, particularly training that employees consider rudimentary or already covering what they already know. It sounds like bullshit because it is - employers are trying to get employees to stay, and some use a stick to do so.
- wing-_-nuts 4y ago
  >Training for a niche industry may be much more expensive because I can’t afford to have a standardized training program, and some employees have to be unproductive to teach the new employee how to be productive. I vehemently disagree with this. If your training is so niche as to not be standardized (and thus, have value in the marketplace), you absolutely should not get to go after the employee. If they leave? Tough. Work on retainment if you wish your company to be successful. With this line of reasoning, every business down to restaurants with fry cooks could argue they are imparting valuable wisdom and thus hold their employees indentured. This is not some hypothetical to me. My ancestors were indentured servants to the Jamestown colony.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    > My ancestors were indentured servants to the Jamestown colony So what? This affects your life how?
    - wing-_-nuts 4y ago
      It's impossible for me to take this question in good faith if you have any reading comprehension at all.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  > If you sign up for the training IF. In many of these cases, employees show up, are told that they are "required" to undergo training that the company has now enrolled them in and that they will be required to repay.
leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
You mean when the employee voluntarily agrees to the terms of the contract? I have seen when employees take advantage of job training and then immediately bounce when their contract expires for that. They used 6months of code camp training while being paid, and as soon as they could they left. If those contracts were not allowed, there wouldn't be a company willing to pay for that. When you sign a lease you usually can't break the lease without penalty.yes, if a company makes up the training costs for in house training, making it astronomical, then that seems like it'd be up for litigation.
- deadbunny 4y ago
  I'm assuming* they all bounced as soon as they could because with their newly acquired skills they could go get vastly more money. I'm also assuming the employer refused to up their pay to "market rates" because, hey they invested in them, they should stick around (for below market rate) because we're all a big family and we invest in our family. * Assumption based on the exact scenario happening every fucking time
- adrianN 4y ago
  Employees voluntarily agreeing to contracts means very little without a lot of context. Generally speaking the power differential between companies and employees is too great for any meaningful "voluntary" action on the part of employees.
  - zo1 4y ago
    Let's all not forget the most "voluntary" contract of all: the "social contract" between the lowly individual and the all-powerful state. Apparently there wasn't a power differential there, right? Purely consensual and I had full choice in not signing it.
    - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
      Okay, but the social contract defends you from the violence of everyone else starting a few months before you're actually born. Sure, it might not be a great contract even given that, and I agree it should be easier to shop around the social contract you want (or that there should be the option not to have one a la seasteading). But given how much it provides before someone is able to understand the terms of a contract like that, it makes sense for it to be opt-in.
refurb 4y ago
It's a contract. Don't sign it if you don't like the terms.
- nucleogenesis 4y ago
  Of course - if you want to eat and have a house and make money and your options are limited due to the lack of any societal norm that people should be cared for and you weren’t privileged to have opportunities to or the the ability to develop skills that are worth money — then you should just be homeless instead of signing yourself into 10s of thousands of dollars of debt to a corporation. Or you should be grateful for the opportunity to be contractually enslaved?
  - refurb 4y ago
    Are you saying semi-skilled jobs are hard to come by? That the woman in the article that was a hairdresser couldn't possibly find another hairdressing job? The other example from the article was nursing. Nursing is in huge demand. That woman most certainly had other options. I worked in Europe. My contract said my company had to give me 3 months notice before quitting. And I had to give 3 months notice before quitting. If I didn't, I had to pay the company the equivalent of 1 months salary for each month of notice I didn't give. So if I just up and quit, I'd have to pay 3 months salary. Was I a "indentured servant" too?
    - Buttons840 4y ago
      > Nursing is in huge demand. That woman most certainly had other options. Part of the problem is the people creating the contracts are perfectly willing to place the burden on existing nurses and allow patients to suffer. Even when already short staffed, hospitals are not under much pressure to renegotiate a contract.
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      > And I had to give 3 months notice before quitting. That's pretty crazy. So if you apply to a new job you have to tell them: "I can start 3 months from now, no sooner"? Edit: This kind of clause seems so counter-productive to the employer. If I was forced to give 3 months notice, I'd be checked out for 2/3+ of that time. What are they going to do? Fire me?

karpierz 4y ago

It does suck. It's also the nature of business, speculative investment. Sometimes you invest capital in something and don't see returns. If you want the employee to own the capital costs, then they better see capital returns as well.

noir_lord 4y ago
But what is capitalism for if I'm not guaranteed a profit (says every large corporation)? You are right though in that's its just another way to socialise the costs and privatise the profits.
gruez 4y ago
> It does suck. It's also the nature of business, speculative investment. Sometimes you invest capital in something and don't see returns. By this logic, should the government also stop helping banks collect debts (eg. garnishing wages or seizing property)? After all, lending is also a "speculative investment" and "Sometimes you invest capital in something and don't see returns".
- nonameiguess 4y ago
  Failing to pay a debt is illegal. Quitting a job is a fundamental requirement of freely competitive labor markets that the social benefits of capitalism are predicated on.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >Failing to pay a debt is illegal. okay but how is that relevant to this discussion? if the state refuses to assist in debt collection, it effectively makes failing to pay debts legal, which seems to be what you want?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - picsao 4y ago

michael_miller 4y ago

To give a specific example in this case.. a type rating to fly a Gulfstream business jet is on the order of $100,000. If a pilot works for a few months and quits, the employer is out a pretty significant chunk of change. An alternative arrangement to direct employment is that the pilot could pay for his/her own type rating, and work as a contract pilot. But that requires having $100k to plunk down, and taking the risk that the job market will be strong after the type rating. In this case, the employee may prefer the "indentured servitude" route versus having to front 6 figures to get their own type rating.

kritiko 4y ago
Where would the pilot be going in this example? Presumably to fly other planes, so even if the employer eats the cost of training, they're supporting the overall job market for pilots. If the pilot is unable to work because of disability, conviction, etc., they're 6 figures in the hole and unable to use the training to get out. Seems like a pretty bad deal.
- coredog64 4y ago
  Tell me about it. My wife attended ERAU to get this training and got a permanent medical disqualification about a year after graduating.
scrapcode 4y ago
Contracts that include the employer footing the bill for professional (transferable) licensure are an entirely different thing than discussed in this article, and I think it's reasonable to have some kind of agreement. Even then, I'm not sure I feel sorry for the employer if something like this were to happen as the requirement to even provide this training would be due to market requirements. Many pilots spend a large chunk of their lives paying for their own training and working underpaid jobs (banner tow, instructing) just because it allows them seat time without it deducting from their bank account. Of course many other factors would sway my opinion of the matter into different directions. Who made the decision to change the fleet to Gulfstream multi-engine jets versus single-engine, or from flying cargo to adding the option to carry passengers, etc. Was the pilot already part of the company when these new qualification requirements were added, etc?

PaywallBuster 4y ago

skinnymuch 4y ago

Yeah it sucks. For corporations. How about for the actual human employees? Does it not suck to have to stay at a job because paying for training would be too much? Rules should help humans not corporations .

rdtwo 4y ago

I mean training employees is always expensive. If you create an environment where they quit after 2 months then you probably need to fix that. While indentured servitude is a solution it’s not one we should have to entertain

ticviking 4y ago
Paying market wages for those skills and having predictable schedules goes a long way to improving retention.

picsao 4y ago

jonnycomputer 4y ago

Sure. But employees pay the costs of these sorts of inconveniences all the time too. Especially in fire-at-will US states.