Unpaid training legal?

av8tr1

av8tr1

"Never tell me the odds!"
I've spoke with three companies now that have required training but it is unpaid. You do not become an employee and get paid until you pass your check ride. How is this legal?
 
av8tr1 said:
I've spoke with three companies now that have required training but it is unpaid. You do not become an employee and get paid until you pass your check ride. How is this legal?
Click to expand...
Where are you looking to work? There are plenty of opportunities out there for people with 1500 hrs.
 
amorris311 said:
Where are you looking to work? There are plenty of opportunities out there for people with 1500 hrs.
Click to expand...

That isn't the issue. I am just surprised at such a blatant violation of fair labor standards acts that seems to be an industry norm. I was wondering if I had it wrong. I worked at a company outside of aviation that got hammered so bad for similar activity that it bankrupted the company. Yet it seems to be prevalent and accepted in aviation even by those that would enforce fair labor standards.

FYI, I am a few hundred hours short of ATP mins so I am sticking with 135 ops. I know its the wild west in 135 but I am not an airline guy and don't want to become one.
 
One view: if you don't make it through training, then you were an employee at the time of a check ride failure. That failure would have to be reported on a PRIA if the trainee were an employee.

Another view: pilots have no understanding of labor law. One flight school I was near made their CFIs sit a desk answering the phones for zero pay.
 
av8tr1 said:
That isn't the issue. I am just surprised at such a blatant violation of fair labor standards acts that seems to be an industry norm. I was wondering if I had it wrong. I worked at a company outside of aviation that got hammered so bad for similar activity that it bankrupted the company. Yet it seems to be prevalent and accepted in aviation even by those that would enforce fair labor standards.

FYI, I am a few hundred hours short of ATP mins so I am sticking with 135 ops. I know its the wild west in 135 but I am not an airline guy and don't want to become one.
Click to expand...

Wait, that's against the FLSA?
 
FLSA requirements for 'Pre-Hire training' to be unpaid:

  1. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the employer''s facilities, is similar to training that would be given in a vocational school (this means the training is "fungible," or interchangeable, and can be used by the employee in another position with another employer);

  2. The training is for the benefit of the trainee;

  3. The trainees do not displace regular employees but work under close observation;

  4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the trainees'' activities and at least on occasion, its operations may actually be impeded;

  5. The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the completion of the training period; and

  6. Both the employer and the trainees have an understanding that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.

So it might be argued that attending FSI for a type rating would meet these requirements, while attending company-specific indoc training would fail 1 and 2.

Additionally state law might come in to play. CA, for example, is pretty strict on it's 'Intern Programs' as many former AMF pilots might have read about recently.
 
SpiceWeasel said:
I worked for a regional that 1099'd you until you passed the checkride.
Click to expand...

Yes but you were still compensated.

Frankly I am amazed that companies get away with this. I know for sure of at least one that was put out of business as a result of this behavior. I am sure there are many others. Yet it is done so blatantly. During the phone call I could have easily been the DOL calling and checking on a possible complaint. The people I spoke with were so blase about as if the law doesn't apply here.
 
Last edited:
NickH said:
FLSA requirements for 'Pre-Hire training' to be unpaid:

  1. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the employer''s facilities, is similar to training that would be given in a vocational school (this means the training is "fungible," or interchangeable, and can be used by the employee in another position with another employer);

  2. The training is for the benefit of the trainee;

  3. The trainees do not displace regular employees but work under close observation;

  4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the trainees'' activities and at least on occasion, its operations may actually be impeded;

  5. The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the completion of the training period; and

  6. Both the employer and the trainees have an understanding that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.

So it might be argued that attending FSI for a type rating would meet these requirements, while attending company-specific indoc training would fail 1 and 2.

Additionally state law might come in to play. CA, for example, is pretty strict on it's 'Intern Programs' as many former AMF pilots might have read about recently.
Click to expand...
Ya, indoc would not meet any of those but #5, you could argue a farmed out type rating would, but anything in house fails.

av8tr1 said:
Yes but you were still compensated.

Frankly I am amazed that companies get away with this. I know for sure of at least one that was put out of business as a result of this behavior. I am sure there are many others. Yet it is done so blatantly. During the phone call I could have easily been the DOL calling and checking on a possible complaint. The people I spoke with were so blase about as if the law doesn't apply here.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they're still violating the law if you're 1099 in training unless you actually are a contractor, which 1099 until checkride does not meet that. You'd pay a much higher tax rate on those wages and the company is also defrauding the IRS.
As to the second point, turn them in. More pilots need to grow a set of nuts.
 
Depends on the operation too.

The Wage and Hour Division, however, takes a position of non-enforcement with regard to pilots and copilots of airplanes and rotorcraft who hold an FAA Airline Transport Certificate or Commercial Certificate, and who receive compensation on a salary or fee basis at a rate of at least $455 per week, and who are engaged in the following activities:

  1. Flying of aircraft as business or company pilots;
  2. Aerial mineral exploration;
  3. Aerial mapping and photography;
  4. Aerial forest fire protection;
  5. Aerial meteorological research;
  6. Test flights of aircraft in connection with engineering, production, or sale;
  7. Aerial logging, fire suppression, forest fertilizing, forest seeding, forest spraying, and related activities involving precision flying over mountainous forest areas;
  8. Flying activities in connection with transmission tower construction, transmission line construction, transportation of completed structures with precision setting of footings, concrete pouring; or
  9. Aerial construction of sections of oil drilling rigs and pipe-lines, and ski-lift and fire lookout constructions.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Depends on the operation too.

The Wage and Hour Division, however, takes a position of non-enforcement with regard to pilots and copilots of airplanes and rotorcraft who hold an FAA Airline Transport Certificate or Commercial Certificate, and who receive compensation on a salary or fee basis at a rate of at least $455 per week, and who are engaged in the following activities:

  1. Flying of aircraft as business or company pilots;
  2. Aerial mineral exploration;
  3. Aerial mapping and photography;
  4. Aerial forest fire protection;
  5. Aerial meteorological research;
  6. Test flights of aircraft in connection with engineering, production, or sale;
  7. Aerial logging, fire suppression, forest fertilizing, forest seeding, forest spraying, and related activities involving precision flying over mountainous forest areas;
  8. Flying activities in connection with transmission tower construction, transmission line construction, transportation of completed structures with precision setting of footings, concrete pouring; or
  9. Aerial construction of sections of oil drilling rigs and pipe-lines, and ski-lift and fire lookout constructions.
Click to expand...

Where did you find this?
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Depends on the operation too.

The Wage and Hour Division, however, takes a position of non-enforcement with regard to pilots and copilots of airplanes and rotorcraft who hold an FAA Airline Transport Certificate or Commercial Certificate, and who receive compensation on a salary or fee basis at a rate of at least $455 per week, and who are engaged in the following activities:

  1. Flying of aircraft as business or company pilots;
  2. Aerial mineral exploration;
  3. Aerial mapping and photography;
  4. Aerial forest fire protection;
  5. Aerial meteorological research;
  6. Test flights of aircraft in connection with engineering, production, or sale;
  7. Aerial logging, fire suppression, forest fertilizing, forest seeding, forest spraying, and related activities involving precision flying over mountainous forest areas;
  8. Flying activities in connection with transmission tower construction, transmission line construction, transportation of completed structures with precision setting of footings, concrete pouring; or
  9. Aerial construction of sections of oil drilling rigs and pipe-lines, and ski-lift and fire lookout constructions.
Click to expand...

So basically they know it's illegal they just choose not to pursue legal action. What a waste.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Depends on the operation too.

The Wage and Hour Division, however, takes a position of non-enforcement with regard to pilots and copilots of airplanes and rotorcraft who hold an FAA Airline Transport Certificate or Commercial Certificate, and who receive compensation on a salary or fee basis at a rate of at least $455 per week, and who are engaged in the following activities:

  1. Flying of aircraft as business or company pilots;
  2. Aerial mineral exploration;
  3. Aerial mapping and photography;
  4. Aerial forest fire protection;
  5. Aerial meteorological research;
  6. Test flights of aircraft in connection with engineering, production, or sale;
  7. Aerial logging, fire suppression, forest fertilizing, forest seeding, forest spraying, and related activities involving precision flying over mountainous forest areas;
  8. Flying activities in connection with transmission tower construction, transmission line construction, transportation of completed structures with precision setting of footings, concrete pouring; or
  9. Aerial construction of sections of oil drilling rigs and pipe-lines, and ski-lift and fire lookout constructions.
Click to expand...

Well technically this only applies to overtime for pilots who make in excess of $455 a week. It doesn't say anything about getting a pass for not paying someone period.

So my original point still stands. Legally all pilots (or employees period) must be paid regardless of training or not.
 
I get where you are going with this but for YOUR career I would think that moving on and the time is probably better spent on a place worth going to.
 
I agree, just surprised it was so prevalent. Already made that mistake once. Will not be doing that again. No pay, No way.
 
av8tr1 said:
Well technically this only applies to overtime for pilots who make in excess of $455 a week. It doesn't say anything about getting a pass for not paying someone period.

So my original point still stands. Legally all pilots (or employees period) must be paid regardless of training or not.
Click to expand...

If it's Pre-hire training, then the pre-employees aren't making $455 a week...
 
NickH said:
If it's Pre-hire training, then the pre-employees aren't making $455 a week...
Click to expand...

As you pointed out above, If it is training for the company as part of the job then the company has to pay the employee.

All three companies required attending company-specific indoc training and as you pointed out in your post would fail 1 and 2. None of these "opportunities" were internships.
 
av8tr1 said:
As you pointed out above, If it is training for the company as part of the job then the company has to pay the employee.

All three companies required attending company-specific indoc training and as you pointed out in your post would fail 1 and 2. None of these "opportunities" were internships.
Click to expand...
Which also must be paid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top