AVCANADA

It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:27 pm

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 201 posts ]  Go to page Previous 13 4 5 6 79 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:53 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7280
There is no other side Fanblade, at least it wasn't the FP60 guys. The other side (if you want to call it that, I don't) was the law and society, and fighting that was stupid. Making it about the FP60 crowd was even more stupid. We're supposed to be intelligent...


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:08 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm
Posts: 607
Your trying to establish the moral high ground again. There isn't any except for a few ultruistic souls. I can't read minds. Maybe you are one of them.

People realized that a candy filled pianyatta was about to get split wide open. Both sides deliberately began positioning themselves for the moment it did. Some were lucky enough to have great timing and pounced on the candy. The rest lost.

That's it. No more to see here.

If the pianyatta had been filed with air? No conflict.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:17 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7280
I see you're still trapped in this "us" against "them" thing. The FP60 crowd had absolutely no effect on the law - none. The law was changing no matter what, and we let ourselves get completely distracted by a useless fight against our own people. Society marched on and the company walked away with all the marbles as usual. Until people like you get smart and start seeing the big picture we are doomed to repeat this kind of fiasco forever.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:18 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm
Posts: 607
Rockie wrote:
I see you're still trapped in this "us" against "them" thing. The FP60 crowd had absolutely no effect on the law - none.


Correct. What I am saying is that the FP60 side was equally responsible for this issue not getting resolved in house. For it heading towards what looks like 20 years of litigation.

The reason was a bun fight over money. For the most part, both sides are equally at fault.

No one should be trying to take the moral high ground. To people like me this looks a lot like a bunch rich people saying me me me.

Nothing more.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:37 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7280
What would you have had them do instead, submit without complaint to being discriminated against? That's not realistic nor was ACPA's response. We imposed discrimination against them because we were mad, hardly a mature reaction. And it garnered an entirely predictable response and set of consequences.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:06 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm
Posts: 607
Yup, it's always the other guys fault for not giving me what I FELT I was entitled to.

This question is directed at both sides of the conflict. Did anyone put forward a zero cost solution to the opposing side?

If this wasn't about money, why not?



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:38 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7280
There is a lot about this issue you are clearly not aware of Fanblade. Over the years Raymond Hall and others have provided the history necessary to have an informed opinion that the union did not. It will take a lot of time but I encourage you to read it.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 7:21 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:31 pm
Posts: 78
From time to time, someone says that no FP60 members opposed age 60 till it came their turn.

When Ross Stevenson was opposing Mandatory Retirement back in the day, I spoke up and said Mandatory Retirement made no sense, particularly in a Competency based job. Mandatory Retirement was simply wrong; I was a junior F/O at the time.

I had a discussion with a Senior Captain in which he strongly supported Age 60, saying that was the deal.

I have subsequently found out that when he was hired, retirement was 45; somehow he stayed on past that despite that being the deal when he was hired.

Don't forget that when 45 became 60, all those who were hired with 45 as a mandatory retirement age stayed.

When ICAO was changing age from 60 to 65, I argued that AC would benefit, and ACPA should support the change in order to gain benefits for the members; Ray was one of many making that case.

ACPA took the low road and the members got nothing.

Now ICAO has slipped in age 65 for all pilots; no reason given. Who promoted that?



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:14 pm 
Offline
Rank 6
Rank 6

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am
Posts: 411
Fanblade wrote:
Yup, it's always the other guys fault for not giving me what I FELT I was entitled to. This question is directed at both sides of the conflict. Did anyone put forward a zero cost solution to the opposing side? If this wasn't about money, why not?


I would agree that money was the main driving force. But it wasn't just the "money" to which you refer, namely money for the over age-60 pilots. It was also about another "money." Money for the pilots who would be temporarily adversely affected by the potential adverse impact on their career progression.

Let me refresh your memory of some of the points that I asserted in posts that I made as early as 2006.

1. Prior to 1978, when the Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted, there was no "contract," implied or otherwise, foisted upon anyone hired, including myself, in the form of a quid pro quo, committing them to retire at age 60. If the age restriction changed after they were hired, it was changed, pure and simple, just like when other elements in the environment changed, such as the privatization of Air Canada, the deregulation of the airline industry, and the bankruptcy of many of Air Canada's competitors, none of which could be predicted with any degree of accuracy;

2. The age 60 restriction, when introduced in the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1978, was conditional on age 60 being the "normal age of retirement" for individuals engaged in similar work. Conditional! The condition had to be met in order for mandatory retirement to apply. It was not absolute. If the condition was not met, mandatory retirement was illegal, regardless of the collective agreement.

3. As of 2006, Air Canada was the only airline in Canada still imposing mandatory retirement of pilots at age 60--in other words, the normal age of retirement even then was likely not 60; the condition provision of the law was not satisfied. As early as 2006, what Air Canada pilots "wanted," referendum or no referendum, was irrelevant to the law. The legal issue was whether or not the exemption was satisfied. ACPA and the employer's contractual provision forcing retirement at age 60 was valid only if the legal pre-condition was met. That was the law.

4. By 2006, every jurisdiction in Canada, save for the federal jurisdiction, had repealed its mandatory retirement exemption; even the federal government had made several attempts over the course of the previous 10 years to repeal the exemption, but all the proposals failed for reasons other than those related to the merits of the issue. For example, some bills died on the Order paper when elections were called, and the issue didn't get back to the top of the heap for some time afterwards, with the new governments.

So it was no leap of faith, then, to count the existing federal legislation as having a very tenuous future indeed.

The issue, therefore, was not "if," but "when?" and given "when," the logical next question was, "How should we deal with it?"

5. "How should a union respond?" We needed to ask ourselves strategically as a group, I argued, "What should be our long-term best course of action?" It didn't take a genius to see that given the inevitable impending change, we needed a strategy to not only manage the change to the benefit of all pilots, but to avail ourselves of a large portion of the huge windfall ultimately to be bestowed upon the employer, should the change not be embraced and managed properly by the union.

6. However, instead of acting strategically, ACPA sub-delegated its management of the issue to the members themselves in the form of a referendum for the members, and, in my view, without providing a proper legal and economic opinion to guide the members as to the consequences of the two mutually exclusive alternatives--embrace or oppose the proposition.

The result, in my view, was the union failing to provide leadership as to the potential for benefiting from the inevitable change, then choosing a path that divided its own members against each other, engaging in litigation that cost the Association hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in legal fees, and that then left the union with a huge potential financial liability (that still exists), if, at the end of the day, it lost its case.

You will note that I have said nothing in this post about the motivation of members of the Fly Past 60 Coalition. For myself, forced out six years ago, flying was my life. My legal work was my insurance policy to protect against the loss of my licence, but flying was my life. I learned to fly in Air Cadets at age 16 and simply wanted to keep working a few more years with the great group of people that I had been associated with for all of my professional life, including the two years that I represented the pilots as ACPA Chair facing off in negotiations directly across the table from Robert Milton and Calin Rovinescu.

Yes, I would have continued to draw a large salary, and yes, I would have impeded the career progression of others slightly by not leaving at age 60.

But my point was simply this. That was going to happen anyway, the only issue was when.

As it turned out, it was 2012, not 2006 or 2009, and I had nothing to do with the government's final success in getting the change into law.

One final thing. Please don't do what so many other have done, namely, accuse me or any of the other members of the Coalition pursuing this valid legal issue through due legal process, of greed, expressly or impliedly. Personal economic interest was obviously also an interest shared by those who voted to oppose changes to the age 60 restriction.

In fact, I have spent the last ten years of my life carrying this torch without charging any legal fees for my work, at great opportunity cost to myself. There have been many legal jobs, attractive both professionally and financially, for which I am eminently qualified and that I would have loved to have taken advantage of, but was unable to do so, because of my commitment to my fellow pilots to see this issue through to finality, a commitment that is unwavering.

It is the issue that drives this motivation, not any potential economic benefit to be obtained, that keeps me and the other pilots supporting this issue steadfastly seeking finality to the questions in issue.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:55 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:44 pm
Posts: 80
Raymond Hall wrote:
Let me refresh your memory of some of the points that I asserted in posts that I made as early as 2006 ... The issue, therefore, was not "if," but "when?" and given "when," the logical next question was, "How should we deal with it?" ... However, instead of acting strategically, ACPA sub-delegated its management of the issue to the members themselves in the form of a referendum for the members, and, in my view, without providing a proper legal and economic opinion to guide the members as to the consequences ... But my point was simply this. That was going to happen anyway, the only issue was when.

Hi Ray,

I also was asking back in 2006 for calmer heads to prevail and was adding my 2 cents to the discussion such as what I wrote here: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=66209&start=375

In my view, ACPA had a golden opportunity to demonstrate how it could represent the interests of all it members, but instead, by choosing to take sides, revealed that the "roots" of a "grassroots" union can run very shallow indeed. ACPA has spent a horrendous amount of money defending the indefensible, and, as has been suggested elsewhere, did so with the ulterior motive of force-retiring as many of it members as possible before the law was formally changed. Nice.

While this dog is dead for me (but the grieving obviously still lingers), your dog is still very much alive and my hat is off to you for sticking with it.

Cheers,



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:23 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm
Posts: 607
Raymond Hall wrote:
Fanblade wrote:
Yup, it's always the other guys fault for not giving me what I FELT I was entitled to. This question is directed at both sides of the conflict. Did anyone put forward a zero cost solution to the opposing side? If this wasn't about money, why not?


I would agree that money was the main driving force. But it wasn't just the "money" to which you refer, namely money for the over age-60 pilots. It was also about another "money." Money for the pilots who would be temporarily adversely affected by the potential adverse impact on their career progression.

Let me refresh your memory of some of the points that I asserted in posts that I made as early as 2006.

1. Prior to 1978, when the Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted, there was no "contract," implied or otherwise, foisted upon anyone hired, including myself, in the form of a quid pro quo, committing them to retire at age 60. If the age restriction changed after they were hired, it was changed, pure and simple, just like when other elements in the environment changed, such as the privatization of Air Canada, the deregulation of the airline industry, and the bankruptcy of many of Air Canada's competitors, none of which could be predicted with any degree of accuracy;

2. The age 60 restriction, when introduced in the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1978, was conditional on age 60 being the "normal age of retirement" for individuals engaged in similar work. Conditional! The condition had to be met in order for mandatory retirement to apply. It was not absolute. If the condition was not met, mandatory retirement was illegal, regardless of the collective agreement.

3. As of 2006, Air Canada was the only airline in Canada still imposing mandatory retirement of pilots at age 60--in other words, the normal age of retirement even then was likely not 60; the condition provision of the law was not satisfied. As early as 2006, what Air Canada pilots "wanted," referendum or no referendum, was irrelevant to the law. The legal issue was whether or not the exemption was satisfied. ACPA and the employer's contractual provision forcing retirement at age 60 was valid only if the legal pre-condition was met. That was the law.

4. By 2006, every jurisdiction in Canada, save for the federal jurisdiction, had repealed its mandatory retirement exemption; even the federal government had made several attempts over the course of the previous 10 years to repeal the exemption, but all the proposals failed for reasons other than those related to the merits of the issue. For example, some bills died on the Order paper when elections were called, and the issue didn't get back to the top of the heap for some time afterwards, with the new governments.

So it was no leap of faith, then, to count the existing federal legislation as having a very tenuous future indeed.

The issue, therefore, was not "if," but "when?" and given "when," the logical next question was, "How should we deal with it?"

5. "How should a union respond?" We needed to ask ourselves strategically as a group, I argued, "What should be our long-term best course of action?" It didn't take a genius to see that given the inevitable impending change, we needed a strategy to not only manage the change to the benefit of all pilots, but to avail ourselves of a large portion of the huge windfall ultimately to be bestowed upon the employer, should the change not be embraced and managed properly by the union.

6. However, instead of acting strategically, ACPA sub-delegated its management of the issue to the members themselves in the form of a referendum for the members, and, in my view, without providing a proper legal and economic opinion to guide the members as to the consequences of the two mutually exclusive alternatives--embrace or oppose the proposition.

The result, in my view, was the union failing to provide leadership as to the potential for benefiting from the inevitable change, then choosing a path that divided its own members against each other, engaging in litigation that cost the Association hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in legal fees, and that then left the union with a huge potential financial liability (that still exists), if, at the end of the day, it lost its case.

You will note that I have said nothing in this post about the motivation of members of the Fly Past 60 Coalition. For myself, forced out six years ago, flying was my life. My legal work was my insurance policy to protect against the loss of my licence, but flying was my life. I learned to fly in Air Cadets at age 16 and simply wanted to keep working a few more years with the great group of people that I had been associated with for all of my professional life, including the two years that I represented the pilots as ACPA Chair facing off in negotiations directly across the table from Robert Milton and Calin Rovinescu.

Yes, I would have continued to draw a large salary, and yes, I would have impeded the career progression of others slightly by not leaving at age 60.

But my point was simply this. That was going to happen anyway, the only issue was when.

As it turned out, it was 2012, not 2006 or 2009, and I had nothing to do with the government's final success in getting the change into law.

One final thing. Please don't do what so many other have done, namely, accuse me or any of the other members of the Coalition pursuing this valid legal issue through due legal process, of greed, expressly or impliedly. Personal economic interest was obviously also an interest shared by those who voted to oppose changes to the age 60 restriction.

In fact, I have spent the last ten years of my life carrying this torch without charging any legal fees for my work, at great opportunity cost to myself. There have been many legal jobs, attractive both professionally and financially, for which I am eminently qualified and that I would have loved to have taken advantage of, but was unable to do so, because of my commitment to my fellow pilots to see this issue through to finality, a commitment that is unwavering.

It is the issue that drives this motivation, not any potential economic benefit to be obtained, that keeps me and the other pilots supporting this issue steadfastly seeking finality to the questions in issue.


Raymond,

Great post. Informative.

I will state this very clearly. There are some ulturistic individuals such as yourself that I may have offended. My oppologies to all of you. My intent is not to offend.

With some introspec I suppose it makes sence that those most emotionally invested, (not sure that is the best term. What I mean is not financially invested, but purely morally invested) would probably be the most persistently vocal.

Please accept my sincerest apologies.

That however doesn't change my opinion over the issue in general. For most this was simply maneuvering to capitalize on change.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:07 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7280
Fanblade.

What is your opinion on forcing people to retire at an arbitrary age before they want to and while they are still capable of doing the job? I mean anybody, but leave AC pilots out of the equation when you answer because I want to know if you think it is discriminatory or not.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:56 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm
Posts: 607
Rockie wrote:
Fanblade.

What is your opinion on forcing people to retire at an arbitrary age before they want to and while they are still capable of doing the job? I mean anybody, but leave AC pilots out of the equation when you answer because I want to know if you think it is discriminatory or not.


Its discriminatory. Everyone knows that. The law is the law is the law.

The problem is not a lack of understanding or empathy. It's not about disliking or wanting to repress the rights of older people. No one cares how long an individual chooses to work. It's their time on the planet. They get to choose how to spend it.

The conflict has been driven by the monetary impact the change created. If there had been no monetary impact, we would not be having this conversation because the issue would never have existed. Raymond would still be working at AC.

The issue is discrimination, however the root of the conflict is not. It's money. This applies to both sides of the conflict.

Here is a quote from Raymond saying the same thing. For some reason he seems to think I am just calling out the FP 60 group. I'm not.

"I would agree that money was the main driving force. But it wasn't just the "money" to which you refer, namely money for the over age-60 pilots. It was also about another "money." Money for the pilots who would be temporarily adversely affected by the potential adverse impact on their career progression."

The root cause of the conflict was actually money, yet noone sat down to address it. It would have required compromise from both sides but certainly would have been better than the current result. Since no one was willing to compromise this was destined to become a bun fight.

Instead this is what happened.

"People realized that a candy filled pianyatta was about to get split wide open. Both sides deliberately began positioning themselves for the moment it did. Some were lucky enough to have great timing and pounced on the candy. The rest lost."

Both sides own that. But no one is. Each side points their finger at the other to place blame.

From my view point no side should be trying to claim the moral high ground.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:57 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7280
Fanblade wrote:
From my view point no side should be trying to claim the moral high ground.


Nobody is claiming the moral high ground, they were just asserting their rights and you can't fault that. But there was certainly a low road and ACPA took it.

As the legal representative of all Air Canada pilots it was their responsibility to first and foremost not allow discrimination to take place against any of its members. Something no other group or union in the country has any problem understanding. Instead ACPA did their best to delay implementation in order to discriminate against as many of its members as they could. Shameful. Next it was their responsibility to minimize the impact on all pilots which they utterly failed at.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:14 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm
Posts: 607
Rockie wrote:
Fanblade wrote:
From my view point no side should be trying to claim the moral high ground.


Nobody is claiming the moral high ground, they were just asserting their rights and you can't fault that. But there was certainly a low road and ACPA took it.

As the legal representative of all Air Canada pilots it was their responsibility to first and foremost not allow discrimination to take place against any of its members. Something no other group or union in the country has any problem understanding. Instead ACPA did their best to delay implementation in order to discriminate against as many of its members as they could. Shameful. Next it was their responsibility to minimize the impact on all pilots which they utterly failed at.


Still pointing eh?

Bad ACPA. BAD BAD ACPA. But your completely innocent. I get it. :lol:

You know that when you point at someone three figures point back.

No other union in this country had a pianyatta the size of ours. It was all about the money.



Last edited by Fanblade on Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:23 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7280
Yes, BAD ACPA. And the only thing I'm guilty of was wasting my breath trying to get them to fulfil their legal and ethical obligation.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:46 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm
Posts: 607
Rockie wrote:
And the only thing I'm guilty of was wasting my breath trying to get them to fulfil their legal and ethical obligation.


No asking ACPA to address the core issue? Money.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 1:15 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7280
Money wasn't the core issue, discrimination was. But if you read back you will see that myself and many other people were trying to get ACPA to deal with the money issue as well to no avail and the company got it all.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:13 pm 
Offline
Rank 6
Rank 6

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am
Posts: 411
Fanblade wrote:
No asking ACPA to address the core issue? Money.

First of all, with respect to your earlier post, no apology required or expected. We are all adults and we are responsible for our own choices. I chose to donate my expertise, time and energy to this issue because I understood the law and I could see the futility of the union's stance, which ultimately cost all the members a huge loss by not realizing any economic benefit whatsoever from the end of mandatory retirement.

Now, with respect to your most recent post, I don't quite understand what you expect would have happened if anyone did approach ACPA to address the money issue. That issue was deeply entrenched in the form of the formula pay system that had evolved over decades into a steeply descending curve, with pilots at the top making huge bucks in comparison to pilots at the bottom.

No other employee group had anywhere need the disparity between the top and the bottom employees on their respective scales. Changing the system was simply not in the cards, absent a wholesale revolution and a very, very long phase-in period, with rights expunged only on a grandfathered basis.

So, no. No-one approached ACPA to deal with the money issue, because any attempt to bring change would have been even more hopeless than persuading them to try to reap some benefit from the impending end of mandatory retirement, even assuming that the union possessed the necessary leadership to even consider that option, which, in my view, it didn't.

Maybe you can suggest how you would have gone at that problem?



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:32 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm
Posts: 607
Raymond,

I realize it would have been difficult. It would certainly have been better than what happened. When that painyatta split it was instead a free for all. Even the company was in on the action.

Without dealing with the monitary issues, this had no chance of getting resolved in house. It guaranteed conflict.

Anyone who was an obstacle to the monitary issues getting resolve was an obstacle to a solution. Anyone who refuses to even acknowledge the issue is an even bigger obsticale to resolution.

What I am saying is you guys have made choices that have contributed to the evolution of this conflict.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:52 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am
Posts: 7280
Even with straight status pay there would still have been a conflict because there is still a seniority system, and pilots being pilots we want what the other guy has. Getting to status pay as a means of levelling off the inequities in our system will unquestionably eliminate most of the problems we have as a group but how do you get there from here? It would take years of dedicated painful effort and sacrifice even if the pilots wanted it - which they don't.

The discrimination issue was immediate and had to be dealt with. The only money issue that could be dealt with was getting a piece of the savings and the union refused to do that. We refused to do that because we were too busy standing in front of the freight train hoping to stop it with our bare hands.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:03 pm 
Offline
Rank 6
Rank 6

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am
Posts: 411
Fanblade wrote:
I realize it would have been difficult. It would certainly have been better than what happened.


Tell me what the "it" is to which you are referring. "It" didn't exist--I asked you to suggest "it," to suggest some feasible alternative, and you answered with a meaningless generality. There was no "it."

Fanblade wrote:
What I am saying is you guys have made choices that have contributed to the evolution of this conflict.

Where would we all have been if none of us had exercised our rights under the law to not be discriminated against on the basis of age?

ACPA would have done nothing to take advantage of the time-limited opportunity to get some of the windfall from the inevitable repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption. Air Canada got it all. Millions. That would not have changed.

You are saying that although I have a right under law to stop my own union from illegally discriminating against me, that because I choose to exercise that right, I am part of the problem? Think again.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:16 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm
Posts: 607
Raymond Hall wrote:

Tell me what the "it" is to which you are referring. "It" didn't exist--I asked you to suggest "it," to suggest some feasible alternative, and you answered with a meaningless generality. There was no "it."



I was referring to finding a monitary solution.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:28 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm
Posts: 607
Raymond Hall wrote:
You are saying that although I have a right under law to stop my own union from illegally discriminating against me, that because I choose to exercise that right, I am part of the problem? Think again.


Not at all. Your focusing on discrimination. Im focusing on the root cause of the conflict. They are two separate issues. What I am saying is to resolve the discrimination issue the monitary issue needed to be solved in tandum. It was the elephant in the closet. Failure address it guaranteed conflict and the path this has all taken.

Anyone who was a road block to dealing with the monitary issues was a road block to an in house resolution. The worst offenders where those who wouldn't even acknowledge the problem as they prevented even the start of a conversation.

I note that this forum is filled with posts dening any real monitary issue exists. They all come from the FP60 side of the issue. It is pretty clear the FP60 side was not interested in addressing the monetary issues.

I realize that the failure to address these issues mostly falls at the feet of ACPA. It doesn't all fall there though. It takes two to tango.

So yes from my point of view you are partly responsible for this not getting resolved in house. But that also applies to anyone who didn't want to address, or stood in the way of addressing the monitary issues.

So when I see complaining or blaming about how this has played out? I roll my eyes. Everyone is unhappy with this outcome and yet no one is willing to accept any responsibility for their part in it ending up in front of a judge. That applies to both sides of the conflict.



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:54 pm 
Offline
Rank 6
Rank 6

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am
Posts: 411
Fanblade wrote:
Raymond Hall wrote:
Tell me what the "it" is to which you are referring. "It" didn't exist--I asked you to suggest "it," to suggest some feasible alternative, and you answered with a meaningless generality. There was no "it."

I was referring to finding a monitary solution.


I, too, was referring to finding a monetary solution. And at the risk of repeating myself, let me say that there was no monetary solution. I asked you to suggest one, and you couldn't, because there is none. There is none because the problem is endemic to the highly skewed formula pay system.

I simply don't believe that you have an adequate grasp of the intractability of that compensation scheme and what it would take politically to shift it even a little, let alone to re-jig the whole system in some vain attempt to overcome the union's violation of its own members' human rights.

As Rockie said, the problem is discrimination. That was and is the issue before the Tribunal. That was and is the issue that is before the courts. Not the compensation system.

Even if there were a monetary solution, which there was not, I fail to see how that justifies my own union violating the law and how I bear any responsibility for their wrongdoing because I demand that they stop breaking the law. The obvious solution is for them to stop breaking the law. If they don't or won't, then I have the right to hold them accountable through due legal process.

Contrary to what you appear to be suggesting, I have no obligation, legal, moral or otherwise, to provide them with a monetary solution to a legal problem that they alone have created. I did provide them with a perfectly simple legal solution: "Stop breaking the law." And they eventually did, but only after Parliament forced them to do so. What is left is the accountability for their earlier actions, which remains a live issue before the Tribunal and the courts.



Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 201 posts ]  Go to page Previous 13 4 5 6 79 Next

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aaumprakash, altiplano, drivers driver, Elessar_44 and 55 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]

For questions/comments please send them to
avcanada@gmail.com


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a topic or post is inappropriate email us at avcanada@gmail.com .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site. 

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.