Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, Sulako, North Shore

Post Reply
Message
Author
777longhaul
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#176 Post by 777longhaul » Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:12 pm

An excellent post by Doug, and this is a very interesting post just after Doug's post way back then, from Raymond Hall.

At one time,......a long time ago, acpa, was actually going to represent its members, and go to grievance, arbitration, for a pilot, in good standing, paying union dues, but then....the current day MEC, decided to reverse course, and fight the issue. And, ever since that day....the entire revolving MEC's, have fought this issue, without a unified majority acpa membership mandate to do so, no matter what the outcome. Amazing, how the flip flop happened, and we have now all spent millions on the MEC's decision(s).

Rockie pointed out, that aprx. 1000 pilots have been hired since then, and they did not have any say in the vote, yet, they are paying for the court battle, and will pay further into the future for court battles, and other possible outcomes.

Quote from Raymond Hall: (underline and bold my addition to the quote)

In March, 2006, a YVR-based Captain requested ACPA to file a grievance on his behalf with respect to his impending mandatory retirement. The YVR ACPA Grievance Committee Chair consequently wrote a letter to senior Flight Operations management at Air Canada advising of the grievance. The Captain was provided with a copy of that letter. It included the following paragraph:

"This grievance seeks an interpretation as to whether mandatory retirement at age 60 violates the ACPA Collective Agreement and/or the Canadian Human Rights Act. ACPA is currently investigating this issue. Depending on the outcome of its investigation, ACPA may take a position that differs from the position of Captain XXXXXXXXX. If that turns out to be the case, ACPA will arrange independent counsel to represent him at arbitration."
end posting quote.

Just think, this was back in 2006.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by 777longhaul on Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#177 Post by Fanblade » Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:07 pm

ahramin wrote:I am not an AC pilot.

Fanblade, was this a poll? It sounds like it was a vote that everyone was open to vote to. If so then that's different from a poll of a random section of a population. Yes you can get results from random polls that show the opinion of a group, but it has to be random. There is nothing random about opening up a vote to everyone and only counting the ones who care enough about the issue to vote on it.
Ahramin,

I wasn't expecting someone who actually knew what they were talking about on this forum. :-)

Your right of course.

I wasn't an AC pilot when this vote took place either. But think about it. 60% of the group voted. Do you believe a realistic mandate can't be extracted from that?

I would say common sense says yes. This whole ACPA didn't have a mandate stuff is absurd.

Again why is this issue important to you guys? Is it about liability? Now you want money from me as well? If ACPA has to pay it will include every ACPA member currently and some to come.

These kinds of arguments are absurd. But the fact they are attempting to make them is revolting.

No wonder this never got solved amicably.
---------- ADS -----------

accumulous
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#178 Post by accumulous » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:11 pm

Fanblade wrote:
ahramin wrote:I am not an AC pilot.

Fanblade, was this a poll? It sounds like it was a vote that everyone was open to vote to. If so then that's different from a poll of a random section of a population. Yes you can get results from random polls that show the opinion of a group, but it has to be random. There is nothing random about opening up a vote to everyone and only counting the ones who care enough about the issue to vote on it.
Ahramin,

I wasn't expecting someone who actually knew what they were talking about on this forum. :-)

Your right of course.

I wasn't an AC pilot when this vote took place either. But think about it. 60% of the group voted. Do you believe a realistic mandate can't be extracted from that?

I would say common sense says yes. This whole ACPA didn't have a mandate stuff is absurd.

Again why is this issue important to you guys? Is it about liability? Now you want money from me as well? If ACPA has to pay it will include every ACPA member currently and some to come.

These kinds of arguments are absurd. But the fact they are attempting to make them is revolting.

No wonder this never got solved amicably.
Lots of good facts coming out, which begs a lot of interesting questions. Not pertaining to 200 pilots, but pertaining to 1701 pilots.

The number of pilots who voted against the 'scheme' approached the size of the entire Vancouver base.
The number of pilots who did not vote and who voted against the 'scheme' was over 30 percent MORE pilots than the ENTIRE population of the Montreal, Winnipeg, and Vancouver bases COMBINED, and was the clear majority.

If the information posted elsewhere is correct, it appears that the vote was rigged, i.e., it was prefaced with the preferred way to vote which in statistical terms renders the vote in any scientific circle as null, that is, it has ZERO validity.

On the basis of that 'vote', an ongoing plethora of cash has been extracted from over 3000 pilots, including the majority who either did not vote or who voted against it.

In scientific research, if you skew a vote or a poll, it gets the round file, it doesn't pass the light of day. You get a bunch of tenured people looking over their glasses at you as they put a big capital 'F' at the top of your paper, and then they circle it in red. That's a Fail.

It's fairly benign though, if the result doesn't cost anything.

But what is the implication of skewing a vote and then using the results to extract millions in cash from over 3000 pilots, including the MAJORITY who either voted against the 'scheme' or who did not vote.

On that basis, do the majority of the pilots, 1701, have the right to pursue a REFUND from the group that put the 'scheme' together?
---------- ADS -----------

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#179 Post by Rockie » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:23 pm

Fanblade wrote:Again why is this issue important to you guys? Is it about liability? Now you want money from me as well? If ACPA has to pay it will include every ACPA member currently and some to come.These kinds of arguments are absurd. But the fact they are attempting to make them is revolting.
Since this issue reared it's very ugly head the fp60 pilots and legal team have been imploring ACPA and the pilot group to not only save themselves the expense of fighting an unwinnable fight, but spare the future pilots from bearing the cost of the inevitable loss. They have also been trying to get ACPA and the pilot group to recognize the benefits of embracing this change early and using it to extract some of the money Air Canada would be saving as a result for the pilot group.

All of this fell on completely deaf ears.

If you want to characterize something as revolting you should perhaps turn your attention to the unbelievable stupidity that put you in this position in the first place.

I'm not unsympathetic to the pilots hired since 2006 who have to pay for this fiasco, but put the blame for it where it belongs.
---------- ADS -----------

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#180 Post by Fanblade » Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:33 am

Rockie,

Blame I can accept. Not happy if I have to pay but it is what it is.

I'm not worried about ACPA's liability from the vote. No one will buy into this BS. What I find frighting is that it is being pursued in the first place. Its revolting.
---------- ADS -----------

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#181 Post by Rockie » Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:15 am

You find human rights revolting?
---------- ADS -----------

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#182 Post by ahramin » Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:11 pm

Fanblade wrote:But think about it. 60% of the group voted. Do you believe a realistic mandate can't be extracted from that?

I would say common sense says yes.
Common sense isn't that common and in any case, I've never seen a proof that referenced common sense. No, I do not believe that there is any way possible to reasonably claim that a realistic mandate can be extracted from that vote. To me it should be obvious that it is ridiculous to make such a claim. There is no need to take my word for it though, if you don't trust my math stop by your local university, knock on the door of any math or science professor and ask them if they have five minutes. I'm sure they'd be happy to confirm it for you.
---------- ADS -----------

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#183 Post by Fanblade » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:25 pm

Rockie wrote:You find human rights revolting?
No. Human rights are sacrosanct. I find the twisting of information in an attempt at justification for specific actions or opinions troubling. Doing this for monitary gain revolting. Clear?

From my vantage point this looks like a bad divorce. Where retaliation has taken a front seat to justice.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by Fanblade on Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#184 Post by Fanblade » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:33 pm

ahramin wrote:
Fanblade wrote:But think about it. 60% of the group voted. Do you believe a realistic mandate can't be extracted from that?

I would say common sense says yes.
Common sense isn't that common and in any case, I've never seen a proof that referenced common sense. No, I do not believe that there is any way possible to reasonably claim that a realistic mandate can be extracted from that vote. To me it should be obvious that it is ridiculous to make such a claim. There is no need to take my word for it though, if you don't trust my math stop by your local university, knock on the door of any math or science professor and ask them if they have five minutes. I'm sure they'd be happy to confirm it for you.
Like any Business degree I too took stats. Your right this wasn't a poll. A random cross section was not used. In the case of a vote I would agree with you had the turn out been very low. This isn't the case here. The turn out is high enough to reasonably extract accuracy within a fairly small margin of error.

No one is going to punish ACPA for not having a mandate to do what they did. Your logic is farsical.

For example. How long has it been since a federal government in Canada has achieved 50%+1 mandate from all Canadian's eligible to vote?

The current government. What percentage of eligible voters, voted for them? What percentage of actual voters, voted for them?

So how come the Harper Government has a mandate? They achieved a mandate from only 38%ish of voters. Voter turn out was less than 60% of eligible voters.

Why? Because he won. That is what a vote is about. Most votes = win which = mandate.
---------- ADS -----------

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#185 Post by ahramin » Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:19 pm

Fanblade wrote:The turn out is high enough to reasonably extract accuracy within a fairly small margin of error.
Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight. Your claim that my logic is farcical in regards to ACPA being punished is bizarre as I haven't said one word about ACPA being punished and have no opinion on it. I was questioning assertions like the one quoted above which someone with your education should know is false. I suggest you give your business stats professor a call and see if he agrees with your interpretation. Better yet, get out your stats book and calculate the small margin of error you claim.

It does bring up an interesting question though, why don't unions do random polls of their membership on issues like this to determine what the membership actually wants.
---------- ADS -----------

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#186 Post by Fanblade » Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:01 pm

ahramin wrote:
It does bring up an interesting question though, why don't unions do random polls of their membership on issues like this to determine what the membership actually wants.
Oh? You aren't aware they did?

For the last negots an outside company was soursed. How do i know? I got a call. Most of it wage and working condition stuff.

The poll came back in the low 80% range supporting the continuation of mandatory retirement. The vote is within 5% of the margin of error on the poll.

The vote and poll were 1-2 years apart. Not sure on actual dates.

My point being still. A vote that takes a cross section of 60% of a group is very likely to reflect the populous as a whole simply because the cross section is so large. Dispite the fact it was not random.

But again. Yes your right. The vote was a vote. The poll was a poll. One random, one not. The poll may be more accurate but since they were not conducted simultainiously. Who knows?
---------- ADS -----------

accumulous
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#187 Post by accumulous » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:13 pm

Fanblade wrote:
ahramin wrote:
It does bring up an interesting question though, why don't unions do random polls of their membership on issues like this to determine what the membership actually wants.
Oh? You aren't aware they did?

For the last negots an outside company was soursed. How do i know? I got a call. Most of it wage and working condition stuff.

The poll came back in the low 80% range supporting the continuation of mandatory retirement. The vote is within 5% of the margin of error on the poll.

The vote and poll were 1-2 years apart. Not sure on actual dates.

My point being still. A vote that takes a cross section of 60% of a group is very likely to reflect the populous as a whole simply because the cross section is so large. Dispite the fact it was not random.

But again. Yes your right. The vote was a vote. The poll was a poll. One random, one not. The poll may be more accurate but since they were not conducted simultainiously. Who knows?
Firstly, the vote was prefaced by the preferred method of voting and therefore, it had a statistical validity of ZERO. The Poll can't establish the validity of a scheme that was based on a vote that had a statistical validity of ZERO. It is also illegal for an employee organization to vote in favor of discrimination, aka Human Rights Act Section 10,

10. It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,
that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

There is no majority in discrimination. You can't vote even 1 black guy to the back of the crew bus with an infinite number of 'votes'. A minority of one person being discriminated against is a majority under the Human Rights Act. And you certainly can't take a vote with a statistical significance of ZERO and use that to extract millions from 1701 pilots without getting into a great big whack of trouble over it.
---------- ADS -----------

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 618
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#188 Post by Fanblade » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:23 am

accumulous wrote:
Firstly, the vote was prefaced by the preferred method of voting and therefore, it had a statistical validity of ZERO. The Poll can't establish the validity of a scheme that was based on a vote that had a statistical validity of ZERO.
I just don't know how to respond to this. :rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#189 Post by Rockie » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:52 pm

Fanblade wrote:
accumulous wrote:
Firstly, the vote was prefaced by the preferred method of voting and therefore, it had a statistical validity of ZERO. The Poll can't establish the validity of a scheme that was based on a vote that had a statistical validity of ZERO.
I just don't know how to respond to this. :rolleyes:
There has never been a vote or a poll conducted where both sides of the argument were presented in a fair manner providing for an educated choice. Had there been the membership would have known that there was nothing to vote on - the law was changing and we needed to adapt. The only choice was to adapt sooner and get something for it or adapt when forced and get nothing.

Guess which one we did?
---------- ADS -----------

Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”