[michael_miller]

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.

[scrapcode]

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?

[mlyle]

A type rating allows you to fly a specific type of jet.

So, if you know how to fly Cessna Citations and Hawkers--- and you move to an employer with Gulfstreams, you're going to need expensive, type-specific training.

If you have $100k in type-specific training for what's now a popular jet, your employability and value to new employers grows.

[gjsman-1000]

Also, bad for the employer that trained you, they may be employers willing to immediately pay you more because you have already been trained and so they don't have to bear that cost.

[lesuorac]

Do those other employers not already have employees that may move to your current/old employeer?

It's zero-sum.

[randomdata]

It is zero-sum when the employee burdens the cost of the training when they leave and makes up the difference in that higher wage in the new job, but that's what is considered a problem here. The suggestion is that a zero-sum situation isn't fair to workers; that the employer should both burden the cost of training and pay a higher wage to those already trained. That is not zero-sum.

[rdtwo]

I mean some people will sell themselves into slavery in desperate situations. That doesn’t mean it should be allowed.

There are other ways to get around this problem either through deferred compensation or through the company being able to retain the certification lisence for a period of time as property that another company or the employee can buy out.

[kritiko]

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]

Tell me about it. My wife attended ERAU to get this training and got a permanent medical disqualification about a year after graduating.

[lesuorac]

Sure but the DoD with probably ~1.5M* Tier 5 employees doesn't have this requirement of having to stay for your job or pay back the cost of a security clearance (~5.5k). That's a collective 5 billion fronted by employers.

I have no problems with a business making a job offer contingent on the candidate doing something (i.e. acquiring a rating or finishing a college degree). Presumably the salary you offer would reflect the skills that they have as well (Plus this is way better than student loans since you actually have a legitimate job lined up). But if you want a current employee to have a set of skills or certificates that they don't already, it's on you to do that.

* Google has ~170k employees [1] with ~2.5k job openings [2] (~70x multiplier). clearancejobs.com has 20.5k job openings so with 70x multiplier is roughly 1.5M.

[1]: https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/20220726_alphabet_10Q.pd... [2]: https://careers.google.com/jobs/results/ [3]: https://www.clearancejobs.com/jobs?clearance=4

[bumby]

I don't think security clearance is a good analogy as they are administered by the government itself. You may be sponsored by a private company, but I believe that work has to trace back to a government contract. (Maybe I'm wrong here and someone can correct me).

However, the DoD often does give these types of contracts for other training. A friend had to sign a contract for university training where they agreed to stay on for 3x the training length or reimburse the expenses.

[lesuorac]

> I don't think security clearance is a good analogy as they are administered by the government itself. You may be sponsored by a private company, but I believe that work has to trace back to a government contract.

To be clear, "sponsored by a private company" involves that private company paying either the government or some other private company money for you to get your clearance (not too sure how the money exactly moves about).

Sure you need to be working a job that actually requires a clearance to have one (but effectively there is a grace period if you get fired/quit). But if Company A and Company B both have a job that requires Tier 5 then you can move from A->B no problem. IIUC, the Jet example is even worse (for job mobility) because it's a rating for a plane so you'd need to go from a pilot at A to a pilot of that plane at B while for the DoD you could go from a programmer to a manager or janitor and it's all Tier 5.

[bumby]

The vast majority of security investigations are done by the govt Office of Personnel Management and paid for by other government agencies with appropriated funds. What contractors may often pay for is hiring someone and then paying their salary while they wait for the clearance to go through (i.e., they pay for them to do something else while they wait for the clearance to do the job they were actually hired for). But that's more about their hiring pipeline than the cost of clearance.

[scarier]

Do you have a source for the Gulfstream type rating cost? Most type ratings cost around $10-15k, and the most expensive I’ve seen is around $35k. Very few pilots pay out of pocket for type ratings, but the vast majority who do only need to take a low 5-figure hit. An aspiring airline pilot could self-fund all the formal training they ever need for under $100k.

[pc86]

$100k is probably from zero to Gulfstream-rated ATP, not including opportunity cost. But yeah $100k for a single type rating is unlikely to say the least.

[FireBeyond]

Yeah, GIV/GV type ratings these days are typically in the $20-30K range, at most.

[FireBeyond]

> a type rating to fly a Gulfstream business jet is on the order of $100,000

If that was paid, someone got ripped off. There are plenty of companies offering GIV/GV type ratings in the $20-30K range.

If your business depends on picking up newer pilots "off the streets", then why would you not do the type rating in-house?

[dataminded]

I don't understand why the employer merits protection from the employee in this case.

The employers could, offer bonus payments for the employees tenure, top of market salaries, equity in the business, or secure private insurance to cover losses if the employee leaves.

Asking an employee, to pay you money so that you can make money from their labor shouldn't be legal.

[bumby]

My best attempt to steelman this argument is that training is a transferrable asset that the employer can't recoup.

Consider if you are an aircraft mechanic who is given a set of tools by the employer. Most people don't think it's unreasonable for the employer to ask for those tools back when you quit. In contrast, they can't ask for the training back.

Imagine if you agreed to work as a doctor for a charity if they agreed to pay for your training. Then upon completion of years of training, you quit to go work in the private sector to get more money. That seems like an extreme example, but it illustrates the point.

It would be interesting to see if employers give the equivalent funds as a bonus to an employee who comes onboard pre-trained. My guess is they don't, which would undermine their point somewhat.

It seems like an overall bad policy. If you hold someone against their will, you're bound to risk sub-standard work for the duration of the contract.

[mattkrause]

Exactly, but the tool analogy hinges on the skills actually being portable to a new job.

I can see the case for repayment agreements if the employer is (say) sending someone to a local university to get an MBA. That training transfers directly to other jobs and its price is set on the open market: you’d pay the same if you self-funded the MBA instead.

On the other hand, niche or employer-specific training doesn’t have either of those properties. Knowing the SOPs at Sally’s Beauty may not help much at other salons, let alone other industries. The price is also arbitrary and the employer has every incentive to inflate it.

[bumby]

I tend to agree with your point, but the focus of the article was on trucking and nursing. Those aren't niche skillsets and would be highly transportable.

[mattkrause]

The article spans the gamut.

The last example in the article, where the employee got a CDL, seems reasonably fair.

The first one though, where a licensed esthetician was charged $1,900 for pro-forma on-site training that she already had, seems like it should be legislated out of existence.

[bumby]

The esthetician skills are also transferable. That one seems to just reek of bad management. It’s hard to come up with a scenario where I’d want to send an employee to training they already have, unless it’s a currency/continuing education issue. Absent those, it’s “training” that adds zero value to neither the employer or employee.

Even so, I’m not sure how legislation would work. It’s once thing if you can point to a license and say the training is unnecessary but I would venture a guess that the majority of training isn’t of that type.

[MisterBastahrd]

Then they can claim it on their taxes. Otherwise, losses shouldn't be offset by taxes and they should eat the entirety of their bad investments like the adults they claim they are.

[bumby]

That's a very good point. We already have other societal mechanisms to mitigate their risk.

[sC3DX]

Why is the type rating so expensive? I assume someone getting this rating already has all of the pre-req ratings. Do they need X hours in the jet and sims, and each of those hours is expensive?

[FireBeyond]

It's not. It's closer to $20K. $100K would probably get you from PPL to here, if not fresh off the street.

[bobkazamakis]

>In this case, the employee may prefer the "indentured servitude" route versus having to front 6 figures to get their own type rating.

In fact, so many of these pilots prefer this indentured servitude that we've got record numbers! Incredible!

[FireBeyond]

Assuming you are being sarcastic... if not, well, there's a HUGE shortage of pilots. Regionals are requesting FAA exceptions to lower the requirements for PIC (pilot in command) time so they can broaden their applicant pool.

[skinnymuch]

Being forced to participate in society doesn’t mean that’s what people prefer.

Your last line is like the mocked meme of “if you hate capitalism so much why did you buy a shirt”. The logic doesn’t work. Of course many anti-capitalists are going to consume capitalism because they live here and not everyone can leave.

The same logic would hold for pilots. Regardless of the numbers.