That’s the law.
So how would any kind of compromise giving up rights be possible? I’m genuinely curious.
Doug Moore wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:30 pmDoug, my location refers to the city in which I am based and has not in any means to infer that the universe revolves around me. Thank you. Have you not heard of yyz called that before?? As for your plan, I'm sorry that your retirement didn't work out as you planned but allow me to insert an aviation saying, a mistake on your part doesn't mean it's an emergency on mine. Yes, a full unreduced pension is what I and many others covet and I'm sure you would be no different. Could it be possible that you were not able to get your full pension and hence you may have some resentment?Rockie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:02 am
Sage, whose location explains a lot (Centre of the Universe) and whose moniker, I believe, misrepresents his acumen regarding the FP60 issue, nonetheless drew a chuckle from me by stating his plan to retire “as soon as” he can get a “full unreduced pension”. And “thank you” no less. When I started out, my plan was to early-retire at 55 but then along the way I changed my views; I really enjoyed my job, my health was great and the realization dawned on me that my pension was going to fall well short of the “full unreduced” variety that Sage apparently covets.
So I had hoped to continue working but we all know how that turned out. Many of the junior (and not so junior) people moaned and groaned, cried foul, stomped their feet, whimpered and whined, said and did anything they could to ensure that as many of their brothers and sisters were forced out the door before the expected legislation banning forced retirement based on age was enacted.
Once that legislation was enacted, the sky did not fall, pilots did not lose their jobs and the seniority list worked just as it had done in the past. I suspect some pilots still early-retired, some died before retirement, others medicaled out but everybody moved up as others moved out. Just as had always been the case – but even better for those who remained given the substantial number of pilots forced to retire prior to the change in legislation.
As for the "many junior (and not so junior) people moaned and groaned...", I can say without a doubt, from what I have personally seen it is people like you that have acted like entitled brats once they have ascended to the top of the seniority list. I personally witnessed on such senior person throw a hissy fit and threw paper and knocked over computers in the sim building because he seemed to have lost an argument. So once again, why hasn't there been an answer to everyone's question, why wasn't the fight started when you or they were junior?
Maybe it is worth talking to some of the pilots who are actually affected by the change in retirement age. Yes, the sky didn't fall, and nobody said it would, but delayed everyone for more than was expected. Even now, we are still waiting. Hardly any body retired early and I suspect, maybe a handful medicalled out.
As for me and the majority of pilots who bid for lifestyle and not money, I don't think we can be accused of being greedy. Unless of course you find my love of being with family more than being at work as greedy. If so, then I am guilty.
Rockie,Rockie wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:09 pmI’m curious what “compromise” you think could have been made here. If a person willingly decides to retire before they are compelled to that’s one thing, and it does in fact happen today. If it were put to a majority vote a large number of people would vote no, and even if only one person did their rights would be violated because rights belong to the individual. They are not subject to the whims of the majority. If later a person who voted to contractually give up their rights changes their mind and are forced to retire anyway...their rights are violated because their rights are still there enshrined in the Charter.
That’s the law.
So how would any kind of compromise giving up rights be possible? I’m genuinely curious.
Those rights you speak of were enacted by legislation under the Harper Government. To be clear, absolutely no one was forced to retire after that date.
Prior to that date it is simply your OPINION that those rights existed. In fact your OPINION is slowly being shown to be wrong. One last stab at legitimizing your OPINION, and when that is done, we will know for sure.
Your OPINION, which so far is wrong, drove your no compromise position.
One side takes a no compromise position and it guarantees conflict.
The time line from the Vilvan/Kelly challenge, and prior to the enactment of legislation, could have been used to enact an equitable transition to age 65.
It wasn't. All parties share the blame for that.
Second, every union in the country save ours supported the end of mandatory retirement. ACPA alone fought to continue a discriminatory practice against their own members knowing they would eventually lose. They knew federal mandatory retirement was on the brink of being outlawed as a violation of human rights yet they supported it as long as possible (as mentioned it was already outlawed in every provincial jurisdiction). Why? If they didn't believe it was discriminatory...why not? Everybody else in the country knew it.
Bottom line, ACPA either didn't believe mandatory retirement was discriminatory before the law changed or they did. Regardless they have shown no remorse either for being the slowest learners in the country and thus doing their members a grave disservice, or for perpetuating a practice they knew was discriminatory which frankly is disgraceful.
The fact so many of our individual members still do not accept the principle of age discrimination is another deeply disappointing issue altogether.
In any event retirements have recommenced and even before that pilots were advancing up in airplanes faster than anyone can remember. Life has never been better, right?
As early as 2004, i proposed that the end of Mandatory Retirement was coming.
I suggested that AC would reap a large windfall from this, and ACPA should negotiate for some of that windfall.
My suggestion was that those wanting to stay would save the company money. That money should be applied to any Pension Deficit, and also be offered to encourage those who wished to retire early.
ACPA took a hard position, using my dues and those of others who offered similar solutions, and used our dues against us, unlike the other unions.
I brieded the VP on the savings available, and he in turn briefed the top execs in AC.
My mumbers proved to be conservative; AC took a huge windfall; the pilots go nothing.
I will say it one last time.
It is only your OPINION that ACPA was breaking the Charter before the legislation change.
So far the courts are telling you that your OPINION is wrong.
See the problem?
This right you speak of very likely didn't exist at the time. The belief it did exist led to a refusal to comprise. The refusal to comprise lead to conflict.
I said they were discriminating against their members which was completely true. The government confirmed it as expected by anybody with an ounce of forethought in 2012. It was wrong, everybody except ACPA and many of its pilots knew it was wrong, and as intelligent, moral adults we shouldn't need to be explicitly told it's wrong before we do something about it.Fanblade wrote:It is only your OPINION that ACPA was breaking the Charter before the legislation change.
Are we a bunch of 5 year olds still learning the difference between right and wrong or should we be able to figure that out ourselves?
And then of course there's the issue of willfully turning our back on our share of financial gains that resulted...
False. Only your opinion. Which again, is slowing being proven wrong.
The government changed the law on that date. They did not CONFIRM any of your opinion. To suggest so is misleading.
Wrong? Again just your opinion. The courts don't seem to agree with you.
What you are doing however is displaying very clearly your absolute refusal to consider compromise, even in hindsight. Even after more than a decade of conflict. Even after the picture looks very much like mandatory retirement prior to 2012 was perfectly legal.
We failed to sit down and find an equitable compromise to the conflict in 2004. That is on everyone.
Especially on people, on both sides of the fence, who voiced the position of no compromise. That position guaranteed conflict.
There was an eight year window of opportunity where we could have compromised and implemented an equitable transition to age 65. Unfortunately the my way or they highway supporters won.
At least you tried to start the discussion.
I’m still curious though, what compromise do you think could have been reached once it was determined our pilots were being discriminated against whether we decided or the government? Is a little discrimination ok? At what point does it become unacceptable and must stop?
You must have some ideas.
All complainants prior to 2010 were dismissed. This is a fact. Discrimination prior to 2010 did not exist. This is a fact. Mandatory retirement prior to 2010 perfectly legal. This is a fact.
Stating discrimination and illegal acts took place during this time is not only false, but worse, deliberately misleading.
The time frame from 2010-12 has yet to be determined. It is simply your opinion in the time frame. Fact is we don't know.
Since in hindsight we know mandatory retirement was legal until at least 2010. We could have done something as simple as, starting in 2004 or earlier, moving the mandatory retirement date gradually toward 65. A slower transition would have gone a long way toward smoothing the inequities created by a sudden change.
It's just an example. Meaningless now. The point is the discussion never took place as both sides dug in on their uncompromising positions. No compromise = guaranteed conflict.
We fought while the company collected the windfall.
As an extreme example slavery was still slavery before it became illegal. If robbery were legal today it would still be stealing would it not?
Basing union treatment of its members on legal interpretation rather than obvious right or wrong is a cop out. Canada’s treatment of indigenous people was considered normal way back when. Even humane. Now we are paying the price.
How about we discuss what we know is right and what is wrong instead? Still waiting for your ideas on compromise...
BTW, bang on that we fought while the company collected the windfall. Were we patsies?
- Rank 7
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
- Location: location, location, is what matters
Bump up for a refreshment of the situation. Legal skirmish goes on.Raymond Hall wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:23 pmhttp://www.timescolonist.com/canadian-h ... 1.22744726
veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.
Others have stated that there was no suggestion of solutions or compromise.
Throughout my career, i spoke against Mandatory Retirement; it made no sense in a Profession strictly based on competence. Others also spoke out.
As early as 2004, years before I was force retired at 60, I approached ACPA personnel pointing out that Mandatory Retirement was ending, and that ACPA should attempt to negotiate that end. Others including Ray Hall also tried to get ACPA to work towards a positive outcome.
I pointed out that ending Mandatory Retirement would result in a financial benefit to AC, and that ACPA should ensure that Pilots shared that windfall.
I made points such as the suggestion that the savings could be used to benefit the Pilot Pension, and that if some pilots wished to work longer, some of the savings could be used to permit other pilots to go earlier if they wished.
ACPA personnel disagreed that Mandatory Retirement would end, eventually taking the decision to oppose ending MAndatory Retirement, and used the dues of those opposed to Mandatory Retirement to fight the end of Mandatory Retirement. Other Unions supported their members; ending Mandatory Retirement for those members.
I briefed the VP on the Financial Implications of ending Mandatory Retirement; he took those figures to the EXCOMM.
AC chose to support ACPA's fight against ending Mandatory Retirement. Air Canada representatives argued that the airline couldn not operate if Mandatory Retirement for Pilots ended. When that did happen, the Airline operated with no difficulty; proving the testimony of the AC (and ACPA) representatives incorrect.
Air Canada has subsequently shown an enormous financial gain from the end of Mandatory Retirement. Pilots did not benefit.
This was not about Greed; it was about ensuring that Pilots benefitted from teh inevitable end of Mandatory Retirement.