req: CFI job advice

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

I know many CFI's who have gone the part time route and have ended up
fairly happy with that decision. Conversely, I know of not one CFI
employed full time with a mortgage, a family, a car, insurance, and
college tuitions to look forward to who is making it on today's CFI
salary.

Thanks for the advice. As a sysadmin I was able to put away a little money
just in case something ever happened (the company laid me off once
previously) so I could cover the difference for the few months until she
finishes classes even if I just worked part-time. If possible I'm going to
hold out until she's done. The problem is, this company has gone merger
crazy and every time they acquire somebody you have to compete for your own
job and accept increasingly-lower pay and benefits if you keep it. They
hire people for one position and as soon as you agree to do it, you're put
somewhere other than what they applied for, 'cause they can't keep people
legitimately.

Most recently I had to sign a contract rider for a job I already have that
says I won't badmouth the company for six months after I quit. That's an
indicator that it's going to get ugly.

-c

Gattman wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

I know many CFI's who have gone the part time route and have ended up
fairly happy with that decision. Conversely, I know of not one CFI
employed full time with a mortgage, a family, a car, insurance, and
college tuitions to look forward to who is making it on today's CFI
salary.

Thanks for the advice. As a sysadmin I was able to put away a little money
just in case something ever happened (the company laid me off once
previously) so I could cover the difference for the few months until she
finishes classes even if I just worked part-time. If possible I'm going to
hold out until she's done. The problem is, this company has gone merger
crazy and every time they acquire somebody you have to compete for your own
job and accept increasingly-lower pay and benefits if you keep it. They
hire people for one position and as soon as you agree to do it, you're put
somewhere other than what they applied for, 'cause they can't keep people
legitimately.

Most recently I had to sign a contract rider for a job I already have that
says I won't badmouth the company for six months after I quit. That's an
indicator that it's going to get ugly.

-c


Sounds like a perfect excuse for doing some serious networking exploring
another company down the line.
Best of luck with your CFI adventure.

--
Dudley Henriques

"GM" == Gattman writes:

GM Most recently I had to sign a contract rider for a job I
GM already have that says I won't badmouth the company for six
GM months after I quit.

To get even more off-topic, that seems unenforceable, I violation of
the free speech clause of the US Constitution. Non-disclosure of
company secrets, sure. Non-compete, maybe. Non-trash-talk?

--
My mother loved children ... she would have given anything if I had
been one.
Groucho Marx

On Aug 30, 6:12 pm, Bob Fry wrote:
"GM" == Gattman writes:

GM Most recently I had to sign a contract rider for a job I
GM already have that says I won't badmouth the company for six
GM months after I quit.

To get even more off-topic, that seems unenforceable, I violation of
the free speech clause of the US Constitution. Non-disclosure of
company secrets, sure. Non-compete, maybe. Non-trash-talk?

Its pretty common. I work in the software/telco industry and usually
when you quit they give you an extra month's pay for signing it.
Basically they don't want you disrupting customers, future employees,
etc. "bad mount" is a generic term. However, in my experience, there
are as many jobs as you can want, all paying well into the 6 figures.
However, I work on the software design side designing software to do
fault and provisioning on network elements. Certainly a different type
of position than an IT guy.

-Robert

Bob Fry wrote:
"GM" == Gattman writes:

GM Most recently I had to sign a contract rider for a job I
GM already have that says I won't badmouth the company for six
GM months after I quit.

To get even more off-topic, that seems unenforceable, I violation of
the free speech clause of the US Constitution. Non-disclosure of
company secrets, sure. Non-compete, maybe. Non-trash-talk?


How is it a violation of the 1st amendment? Nobody is forcing him to
sign the agreement. He is self-censoring and that isn't a violation of
the Constitution.

Matt

"MW" == Matt Whiting writes:

MW How is it a violation of the 1st amendment? Nobody is forcing
MW him to sign the agreement. He is self-censoring and that
MW isn't a violation of the Constitution.

It may be. A voluntary agreement to be a slave is void in the USA,
because slavery--even voluntary--is unconstitutional.
--
"After Perl everything else is just assembly language."

On Aug 31, 6:13 am, Bob Fry wrote:
"MW" == Matt Whiting writes:

MW How is it a violation of the 1st amendment? Nobody is forcing
MW him to sign the agreement. He is self-censoring and that
MW isn't a violation of the Constitution.

It may be. A voluntary agreement to be a slave is void in the USA,
because slavery--even voluntary--is unconstitutional.

No, we sign these agreements all the time in my industry. The courts
have provided guidelines for companies for these agreements. As I
recall they must be of reasonable time (usually 1-2 years), reasonable
scope (topics, etc), and reasonable geography.

-Robert

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
"GM" == Gattman writes:

GM Most recently I had to sign a contract rider for a job I
GM already have that says I won't badmouth the company for six
GM months after I quit.

To get even more off-topic, that seems unenforceable, I violation of
the free speech clause of the US Constitution. Non-disclosure of
company secrets, sure. Non-compete, maybe. Non-trash-talk?

My wife is having a field day with it. She's in human resources and says
companies pull these kinds of stunts all the time. For example, many
companies in the tech industry have a clause that says they will fire you
for discussing your salary with other employees.

Turns out, they don't have to fire somebody for it to get sued for it. It's
illegal. But many companies either don't know it or they do it for as long
as they can get away with it.

-c

On Aug 31, 8:00 am, "Gattman" wrote:
"Bob Fry" wrote in message

...

"GM" == Gattman writes:

GM Most recently I had to sign a contract rider for a job I
GM already have that says I won't badmouth the company for six
GM months after I quit.

To get even more off-topic, that seems unenforceable, I violation of
the free speech clause of the US Constitution. Non-disclosure of
company secrets, sure. Non-compete, maybe. Non-trash-talk?

My wife is having a field day with it. She's in human resources and says
companies pull these kinds of stunts all the time. For example, many
companies in the tech industry have a clause that says they will fire you
for discussing your salary with other employees.

Turns out, they don't have to fire somebody for it to get sued for it. It's
illegal. But many companies either don't know it or they do it for as long
as they can get away with it.

Your wife may believe that but at least in California the courts have
provided us guidelines for such agreeements to make them enforcable.
This was almost a week of class of our employeement law course.
With regard to being sued, it makes no difference. In most states
anyone can sue anyone at any time for anything so it makes no sense to
worry about being sued. What you do is try to follow the guidelines
outlined by previous courts to ensure that the courts will look upon
you with favor. Besides, most all technology companies require binding
arbitration as part of their employment contract.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...

Turns out, they don't have to fire somebody for it to get sued for it.
It's
illegal. But many companies either don't know it or they do it for as
long
as they can get away with it.

Your wife may believe that but at least in California the courts have
provided us guidelines for such agreeements to make them enforcable.

(True: We're in Oregon. Different states handle that differently.)