"404. That’s an error.
The requested URL /newspapers?id=6a was not found on this server. That’s all we know."
When I copy and add the un-highlighted "... %2C4028935" to your link I get sent to a page with links to what looks like every newspaper in the world.
Go back and try the link now, it is working, finger trouble from me.
If not working for you, go to the following on this forum:
Please go to the posting, Happy Birthday your Fired, *bottom of page 3) a few post down and go to the bottom of the post, the link will take you into a newspaper article on AC and some info on CALPA and the age 60 issue. The link works there its at the bottom of the page.
I guess I can accept that age discrimination is illegal, and should be. And now it's changed. I just don't think you're all owed any more than you already got. It's an argument but it's obvious at the core that this is just one groups wishes winning over another. Nothing to do with rights. If "retirement age" was the primary criteria for all y'all's career choices why aren't there more applications at companies that don't "discriminate." Or don't have pensions at all, for that matter. See, you're all completely full of crap and everyone knows it. Human nature I guess, I just hope the courts are smart enough to see that the rights issue is now settled. The big win is in the bag. Now the ONLY thing you're arguing about is that the win came too late to cash in. Pardon me while I roll my eyes so far back in my head I can barely stand up.
I offer my honestly respectful congratulations sir...that is a breakthrough that many of your peers still have yet to reach.Dockjock wrote:I guess I can accept that age discrimination is illegal, and should be.
Real age discrimination like, "no new hires over age 30," would be terrible. "Everyone retires at 60 after in many cases 35+ yrs on the job, here's your awesome pension and free travel for life,"....hardly. If that's discrimination, and I guess now it officially is, then surely it's the least, lowest, smallest possible type measurable.
Like a near miss................ not an accident, catastrophic! alas still a near miss.Dockjock wrote:If that's discrimination, and I guess now it officially is, then surely it's the least, lowest, smallest possible type measurable.
Just like discrimination
Hired at 20? Lucky you, you got to #1 and you're out at 55 with full pension. Hired at 30 and stayed til 65? Lucky you, you got to #1 too, full pension. Hired at 35? Not as lucky, but you still reached a high percentile on the list and are able to check out at 60 with 25YOS or maybe you choose or stay?
The way some senior senior guys on the list are being allowed to park at the top after the change over, clogging it up meanwhile pushing 40 YOS and almost making a joke of it is BS. I heard one 777 cpt comment that he wasn't leaving until so and so one # below him did because he wasn't giving up his # to him. Hardyfuckinghar, isn't that cute. It isn't a joke for the rest of us trying to improve our seats and climb out from under the mountain we find ourselves under. So last fifteen as a WB skipper and a 150k+ pension you can step into tomorrow? Go away.
I'd like to think, hope, that there is a little more nuance to this particular case particularly since it is so obvious that the part you claimed to be fighting for- the rights issue- was won and the victory passed with a whimper. Now that the money phase is at hand the sound of 200 greedy pigs rubbing their hands together is getting a little bit beyond irritating.Norwegianwood wrote:Like a near miss................ not an accident, catastrophic! alas still a near miss.Dockjock wrote:If that's discrimination, and I guess now it officially is, then surely it's the least, lowest, smallest possible type measurable.
Just like discrimination
If that was all that the issue about, you might have an argument. But it is not. As the remaining contributions to this forum clearly demonstrate, the validity of the age 60 termination provision has not only been tenuous from the outset, its legality has never been absolute, even at Air Canada. The only way that it was effected after the enactment of the human rights statute that prohibits discrimination on several different human rights grounds, including age, is that the legality of the provision was conditional. Conditional. Comprendez?Dockjock wrote:The core of rights issues to me are ones where somebody is harmed due to an attribute that they have no control over- skin colour, gender etc. Choosing an employer is a crapshoot, and we all just pick the one we think offers the best overall package for career progression and thus earnings. Air Canada had been at or near the top of that pile for a few decades now. It's just a bit, I don't even know the word, hubris? It takes a lot of hubris to complain that ones rights have been taken unjustly after playing for the top team for 30 years...
It was legal so long as the normal age of retirement was 60. And there was a continuing onus on the employer to demonstrate that any termination of employment was in compliance with the law. That meant that in terminating any pilots on the basis of the provision, prior to the repeal of the exemption, Air Canada had to demonstrate that age 60 was the normal age of retirement for pilots in the Canadian airline industry. Demonstrate it, not assume it.
So the issue is not just about complaining about one’s rights, after working one’s way to the top of the heap, as you put it. When the most current challenges started in 2003 (there were several other challenges in the 80’s and 90’s), the issue was about forcing Air Canada to demonstrate that its termination were in compliance with the conditional exemption. If there was no challenge, they could have just kept on doing what they were doing, with impunity, even though the actions were in violation of the law.
It had to start somewhere, and the fact that the person who put some organizational effort into the original pilot complaint(s), organized the necessary structure to formalize the process and to garner the resources to challenge both Air Canada, with its highly paid outside legal team, and the union, with its superior legal counsel, is indicative not of personal volition, but of smarts. No one pilot could have done this alone, given the financial challenge. Ask your ACPA rep how much this has cost so far, in terms of legal fees. Double that for Air Canada’s legal expenses. Then ask yourself how the coalition has managed to stick with this over the eight years of litigation. The obvious answer is that this has to do with much, much more than simple personal interest in financial gain. Although you may not agree with the suggestion, there is a lot of principle holding this group together, not just from the organizers, but from all the members of the coalition as well.
Underlying it all is the fundamental belief that from at least 2005 onward the terminations were in violation of the conditional exemption in the statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age. And with the decision of the federal court this past January, that belief is supported in law.
Demeaning slander is uncalled for. It seriously detracts from the substance of your submissions and diminishes your otherwise professional stature, sir. None of our group has ever made any personal attacks against any those whose view differs from ours, although we obviously could have. We have always treated everyone, even our harshest critics, with respect. I would simply ask that you pay us the same consideration.Dockjock wrote:Now that the money phase is at hand the sound of 200 greedy pigs rubbing their hands together is getting a little bit beyond irritating.
Nor is it to us. We haven’t spent years and years of our time supporting our organizers and paying our legal counsel hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to walk away from the conclusion of this because people such as yourself have failed invest any time to get the facts and to get your minds around what is at issue here. But just because it isn't a game is no reason not to treat those whose opinion differs from own in slanderous, demeaning terms.Dockjock wrote:This isn't a game to me, where we shake hands at the end and say Good Game..
Your view of the rights issue obviously differs from the view of the court.Dockjock wrote:This is an embarrassment, a perversion of the entire rights issue that diminishes in my mind the entire concept, and violates the original intent of the charter to the extent that it's aim was probably to lift up groups who were previously unfairly disadvantaged due to racism and prejudice and so forth. ]
The present case is not about the charter, it is about the basic human rights law that has been the law of the land for over 30 years. May I respectfully suggest that you educate yourself about the actual dispute instead of making erroneous assumptions and slandering those of us who base our opinions on fact and law, rather than on emotion?
The rights issue is not settled, at least, not yet. That is why we are in court. And you may very well be surprised how your view of "what we deserve" will differ from the view of the court and the tribunal as to the damages actually payable by you and your union, once the rights issue is finally settled.Dockjock wrote:35-yr airline pilots who have a pension and travel benefits that extend into retirement- which they were eligible for while still young enough to enjoy them!- don't exactly fall into that group in my world, but hey, keep pretending that you were "fired." The rights issue is settled, but you deserve nothing and a penny more is a travesty.
Anyway, take a week off to think about why your post a) wasn't nice and b) violated forum rules and c) really, really wasn't nice.
The courts are not always right but they are the authority, so the decision is what it is. Gay marriage is still illegal in many jurisdictions, and women don't vote everywhere. Slavery is legal. Racism is still entrenched in societies around the world. Canadian courts aren't perfect either. You had to retire, and now want money and may even get it from a HUMAN RIGHTS claim. Embarrassment.