Pilots Support Retirement

[115B]

The point about the MEC Newsletter is that parts of the ACPA leadership have bought their own line to the point that they don't understand their own numbers. It could be argued that 42% of the membership disagrees with the policy; for certain, 370 or so active pilots voted against it. In fact, it does not matter what the membership thinks, age based retirement is illegal.

There are always those who are willing to tell others how to live their life, whether it be religious leaders, union leaders, or politicians. In Canada, and most of the developed world, it is no-ones business how one lives one's life as long as one obeys the law.

It is tiresome to listen to someone pontificate that someone they do not know should want to retire, (or continue working) or otherwise govern their life according to the pontificators ideas. You have the right to retire when you want to; you do not have the right to tell anyone else they have to retire for any reason that is not performance related.

We get to decide those things for our own life, but not for the lives of others. Neither a Union, or any other organisation can enforce an "agreement" a "contract", or anything else which is not legal. We will all know soon enough whether the "agreement" everyone keeps referring to is legal.

[fish4life]

what happens when they turn 65? will they say then its illegal again to force them to retire?

[yycflyguy]

Yes

[Mechanic787]

May I encourage you to, as much as possible, look outside of your fish bowl, to get a better perspective on this dispute. I would expect that one of the reasons that the Tribunal is taking so long in rendering its decisions is that it must look at the fundamental legal issues involved here from a much broader perspective than that of the pilots who have presented their cases to the Tribunal.

Not only are there many other airline workers coming along in the Tribunal queue, but there is also a whole series of employees outside of the airline industry itself, including truckers, longshoremen and financial industry personnel, including those at the highest levels of management who are challenging the existing law. Even the major television networks still employ individuals on contracts that specify retirement at a specific age.

As I understand it, the Canadian Human Rights Act was not written with Air Canada pilots in mind. So too, then, issues such as specific pay systems and specific seniority and benefit systems are largely irrelevant to the questions that the Tribunal must decide. The corollary of this assertion is that regardless of the specific impact on the individual organizations involved in these cases, the determinations will be made from a more systemic perspective; therefore individual organizations, especially individual employers and their unions will have to find means within their own processes to adapt to the consequences of the changing law, regardless of the apparent imbalance that the decisions may create within specific organizations and regardless of the motivation of the specific protagonists and/or their associates.

Focusing on these imbalances or on the assumed motivation of any of the players, therefore, while compelling, does little more than distract one from the more pressing social/legal issue question of how and when mandatory retirement provisions will be diminished and eliminated entirely—in short, how and when mandatory retirement will be mandatorily retired in the federal sector.

[Clyde River]

The MEC Chair has released a Newsletter stating that the recent ACPA survey shows that "0ver 80% of pilots support retirement at 60". According to the results previously released, far fewer than 80% of the pilots voted.

Interesting concept.

Assuming the sample was taken randomly, and constructed properly, the poll should be pretty accurate of the entire group, just any survey would of a poplutation, whether a business or of the nation for example.

Polls are used all the time, so why are you so amped to attempt to discredit this one. The result basically backed up the vote that was taken a few years prior by ACPA.

Even in an open vote, whether for the leadership of the nation or of a union, it is unlikely that 100% of the eligible voters will make the effort. The results of a national election are decided by less than 50% of the nation's voters. We live with that, and the polls prior to the elections are generally pretty much representative of the final result.

[bcflyer]

Just to clarify, the numbers posted by the MEC came from the WAWCON survey taken about 2 months ago. The purpose of the survey was to determine where the priorities should be come next years negotiations. The Age 60 question was just one of many included on the survey.

[Disco Stu]

what happens when they turn 65? will they say then its illegal again to force them to retire?

They wouldn't be forced to retire at 65, merely transferred to the right seat or back seat where they would remain until the either died or medicaled out.

[sepia]

Work until death, doesn't that have a catchy ring to it?

[accumulous]

Work until death, doesn't that have a catchy ring to it?

Makes an interesting topic - found a neat reference on the net - the total population of the planet is just under 7 billion - every single one of them will be deceased in just a little under 11 short decades.

[Mechanic787]

Work until death, doesn't that have a catchy ring to it?

Unless I am missing something here, you are missing the point. This issue here is not about working until death. It is about working at Air Canada until one chooses, of one's own volition, to stop working at Air Canada, at an age of one's own choosing, free from discrimination on the basis of age.

Those who oppose the change in the mandatory retirement provisions of the collective agreement, as I read the posts, have no opposition whatsoever to anyone working as long as they want, so long as they don't work for Air Canada as long as they want, impeding the potential career progression of others.

These are not fine technical points of argument. They are substantive, and they factor into the conflict. So let's keep the issues clear. The issue is not about working until death. The issue is solely one of an employer and a union being able to legally dictate, via contract, that those who choose to keep working beyond an arbitrary age not of their own choosing must seek alternative employment to do so.

[UC-64A]

And I quote,"The issue is solely one of an employer and a union being able to legally dictate, via contract, that those who choose to keep working beyond an arbitrary age not of their own choosing must seek alternative employment to do so."

So let me get this straight that you imply the company and union are dictating the contract ??!!! Nope, the very individuals in question here for soooooo many moons have by OWN decision voted on the very contract in debate ! It is the collective group as one that have made the guide lines pertaining to their retirement as they agreed upon for how many contracts. They also had full knowledge of the terms/conditions of the workplace when they signed up in their 20s, they had the power !!
The very fact that these individuals had the knowledge and based their decisions and ELECTED to continue employment for greater then 32yrs of service shows a willingness to accept the terms and conditions of the collective agreement. Plenty of time to plan their retirement according to the very contract they voted on !

And to all a Good night !!

[Mechanic787]

So let me get this straight that you imply the company and union are dictating the contract ??!!! Nope, the very individuals in question here for soooooo many moons have by OWN decision voted on the very contract in debate ! etc. etc. etc.

It is such a shame that so many of you who have huge judgmental responsibility in your professional work first, can't seem to distinguish between a legal argument and a moral argument, and second, can't seem to incorporate into your thinking processes factual information that has been spelled out so often in this and other threads here and elsewhere completely negating your assertions.

It doesn't really matter to me whether you ever do move beyond these two constraints, because all that I am interested in is the ultimate tribunal and court decisions that are about to change the landscape of the work environment in the federal sector.

But let me ask you this. Do you honestly believe that the CHRT or the Federal Court will take into consideration the content of the Air Canada - ACPA collective agreement and/or the Air Canada pension plans in the context of the separate and only questions before them in these disputes? How can they, when the questions were never raised before them in the proceedings?

To you the question may be contractual, but to the tribunal and the court the sole question is whether the mandatory retirement exemption to the general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age under the statute is applicable or is not applicable, regardless of the context of your own contractual circumstances. As I understand the law, collective agreements, regardless of the actual or implied terms contained within them and regardless of the agreement or non-agreement of individuals within the bargaining unit to submit to the terms and conditions of those agreements, cannot violate the human rights legislation because human rights legislation has supervening legal authority over those agreements. End of debate.

Unless and until you get your mind around the legal issue here, as opposed to the moral issue, you do yourself a disservice. In addition, you are setting yourself up for a significant disappointment, once the decisions are ultimately released.

[SaskStyle]

[quote="Mechanic787"]

It is such a shame that so many of you who have huge judgmental responsibility in your professional work first, can't seem to distinguish between a legal argument and a moral argument, and second, can't seem to incorporate into your thinking processes factual information that has been spelled out so often in this and other threads here and elsewhere completely negating your assertions.
quote]

And that's where we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

I don't think it is shameful at all to be mindful of moral implications in legal arguments.

After all, were laws not created to uphold the morals of a society?

You see it shameful that one chooses not to seperate the two.

I see it shameful that one chooses to use one (the legal system) to further personal gains with no consideration of moral implications.

[WF9F]

I don't like it but the landscape will change at AC for the self serving few who want to go over 60, IMO. Our track record with the legal system is far from stellar but for the over 60 crowd to think that all will continue in their current positions with the present day benefits in our CA is indicative of their mindset, misguided.We have to change the CA to make it not beneficial to stay . No GDIP( already in the CA that no one over 60 gets GDIP) and back to the EMJ. Enjoy it and i don't believe that falls under the CHRT guidelines.

" But Sir, I want to keep working and fly the biggest, enjoy the exotic layovers , get paid the most, enjoy the best schedules and vacation. If i lose this my rights have been violated"

" Sit down"

[JayDee]

And I quote,"The issue is solely one of an employer and a union being able to legally dictate, via contract, that those who choose to keep working beyond an arbitrary age not of their own choosing must seek alternative employment to do so."

So let me get this straight that you imply the company and union are dictating the contract ??!!! Nope, the very individuals in question here for soooooo many moons have by OWN decision voted on the very contract in debate ! It is the collective group as one that have made the guide lines pertaining to their retirement as they agreed upon

Please show me in the contract you continually espouse about where its dictates anything about a mandatory retirement age ?

Uhh....you can't...because it isn't there !!

So enough with this continual contract bovine excrement about how and or what was voted on !! It is totally irrelevant to this discussion

The issue is about FORCED retirement against ones wishes. Every individual's wants and needs are different. Just because you may want to retire does not give AC or ACPA the right to force someone else to retire who still enjoys their job.

Re read Mechanic787's post:

"As I understand it, the Canadian Human Rights Act was not written with Air Canada pilots in mind"

"To you the question may be contractual, but to the tribunal and the court the sole question is whether the mandatory retirement exemption to the general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age under the statute is applicable or is not applicable, regardless of the context of your own contractual circumstances. As I understand the law, collective agreements, regardless of the actual or implied terms contained within them and regardless of the agreement or non-agreement of individuals within the bargaining unit to submit to the terms and conditions of those agreements, cannot violate the human rights legislation because human rights legislation has supervening legal authority over those agreements. End of debate.

Unless and until you get your mind around the legal issue here, as opposed to the moral issue, you do yourself a disservice. In addition, you are setting yourself up for a significant disappointment, once the decisions are ultimately released."

[Mechanic787]

...back to the EMJ. Enjoy it and i don't believe that falls under the CHRT guidelines.

You should have a look at Section 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Moreover, you might want to have a look at some of the other sections of the Act as well. If the mandatory retirement exemption under 15(1)(c) is not applicable (as the Tribunal found, in its 2009 decision) any form of discrimination on the basis of an arbitrary age is then prohibited.

In short, any discriminatory action related to the arbitrary age of 60 (or for that matter, any other age) is prohibited under the Act. Where this will be most noticeable is not in the reinstatement of already-terminated employees, but in the cease order against Air Canada forcing it to stop terminating the employment of individuals at age 60. Age 60 will thus become a non-event, so far as rights under the collective agreement are concerned.

For the life of me, I have no idea why your union is not advising you of these basic facts. If they are obvious to me, as an outsider, they should be obvious to you, as an insider; these facts will significantly affect your future, so they should be second nature to you. Obviously they are not.

[Localizer]

I thought the environment at Air Canada was toxic before all this ... now you'll need a Hazmat suit just to get in the flight-deck.

[yycflyguy]

I thought the environment at Air Canada was toxic before all this ... now you'll need a Hazmat suit just to get in the flight-deck.

paahhleeeze. There is a big difference between debating on an anonymous forum and what happens in a professional environment. Everyone is smart enough to realize if there are differing opinions to just check them at the door before you check in.

[accumulous]

paahhleeeze. There is a big difference between debating on an anonymous forum and what happens in a professional environment. Everyone is smart enough to realize if there are differing opinions to just check them at the door before you check in.

That is entirely correct. Air Canada pilots and pilots in general have one thing in common and that is when they strap themselves into the sharp end of the airframe, it's a serious business. I highly doubt there is any Air Canada pilot who does not fit that picture. I would ride in the back end of an airplane flown by Air Canada pilots anywhere in the world, any time. Regardless of the nature of this issue and other issues that continually come up, I think the Air Canada pilot is first and foremost a real performer. and safety is the number 1 priority. No problem there. This age 60 business is a hard thing for some guys to get their noggins around but at the start of the day if they're not comfortable with it they have the luxury of excusing themselves from the flight deck under the applicable provisions of the CARS and they're likely smart enough to know when to do that.

I also do not think it matters 1 bit who comprises the flight deck on any given day. Most of the guys have been through at least 1 very difficult merger and flight decks have been populated by a lot of different personal attitudes but at the end of the day the Captain calls the shots and invariably sets the stage for the CRM environment and they all handle it with a high degree of professionalism as they are trained to do. When the dust settles on this age 60 business and there are mixed flight decks, despite what you might read on this forum, when the boys and girls walk down the finger to the ship the sole purpose will be to get it to point B in the safest manner possible.

[Localizer]

paahhleeeze. There is a big difference between debating on an anonymous forum and what happens in a professional environment. Everyone is smart enough to realize if there are differing opinions to just check them at the door before you check in.

Really? .. AC/Cdn merger? .. That sorta professional environment? In the end the "typical Air Canada Pilot" after he takes his space suit off is no different then the average joe. They have emotions and can't help but let them spill out from time to time. Its been seen at many airlines during the countless issues that arise, even in the flight-deck. So paaahhleeeeze .. next time shovel that crap somewhere else.

Loc