Is 60 too old?

[Brick Head]

Rudder,

What do you say when a HRT board member asks specifically.

Assuming any contractual change could be made, could these individuals have been accommodated?

The honest answer to this question is yes and that is what he said. Once he had said that anything else he had to say became pure nonsense. Was it not Jazz that operated during the same time frame post 60?

You look pretty silly when you claim a BFOR but also admit you don't have one. He was doing a job that couldn't be won. I feel bad for him. The CHRT seems to place the inability to prove a BFOR on his shoulders. As if he personally wasn't prepared.

The fact of the matter is AC did not, nor does not have a valid BFOR. People can be accommodated domestically if need be. Always been that way. The legality of mandatory retirement hung on one specific exception. Once it fell, that was it.

[Brick Head]

Hopefully the 'remedy' phase of the proceeding will bring greater clarity to the practicality of solutions

It definitely will. I am just wondering when that phase will actually take place.

We just had the CHRT make a law change that as of yet has not been tested by the courts. Will the appeals courts stay the remedy portion until this change has been properly vetted? Remember the architects of the CHA put the exemption in for a reason. (another thread all on its own) Does a CHRT have the right to pick and choose which parts of CHA they will follow? To claim that the exemption amounts to age discrimination??? Isn't that why the architects of the CHA called it an exemption in the first place?

We also have a CHRT apparently believing they can dive into the collective bargaining rights of unions. This also is new. The true collision of labor law, and human rights legislation, and the resulting fall out will take place in the federal courts.

Put these two issues together and there is a high probability that if the appeals courts allow remedy to be implemented now. There is a high probably of change later.

One never know what the courts will do. But certainly a stay at this point while the CHRT decision winds its way through to a final conclusion is not out of the realm of probability.

We all must follow the law and direction of the courts as they ebb and flow.

[rudder]

One never knows what the courts will do. But certainly a stay at this point while the CHRT decision winds its way through to a final conclusion is not out of the realm of probability.

We all must follow the law and direction of the courts as they ebb and flow.

The only problem with a stay is that individuals are affected almost daily (turning 60 at AC and being mandatorily retired). In the US, at least they set a cut-off date and made non-retroactivity legislative. This has the potential to drag on for months or years.

[Rockie]

The two recurring themes here that people rail against are the motives of the pilots who filed the complaints, and the sanctity of the collective agreement.

In the case of the motive, it is not relevant to the discussion unless you just want something to yell at. Their motives were not looked at by the courts or the HRTC, and it does not effect the outcome we've arrived at in any way. It is not worth the breath wasted talking about it because it effects nothing.

The contract in this case is also irrelevant because as it stands right now it is illegal and therefore void as it pertains to mandatory retirement. Just like the vote that was taken, it has no bearing in the eyes of the law that has ruled on this matter so it too is not worth the breath talking about. If anything changes that renders a piece of the contract illegal then it doesn't count...period. A contract cannot contravene the law. The sooner we wrap our heads around that and stop talking about the contract and vote as if it mattered the sooner we can get on to real progress on implementing this in the best possible way.

[tonysoprano]

I think Ray learned alot from the merger. After all he wasn't just a pilot, he is a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer but I'm starting to get the idea that if you simply dismiss your opponent's case through repetition and repeatedly call it "not relevant", put yourself in a minority and declare yourself discriminated then you create a big picture that judges love because it becomes easier for them to contemplate. Kinda like cult brainwashing. So never mind common sense and democracy. You know, it's really not that hard. Companies have made themselves successful at it. Criminals have made a living at it. And come to think of it, maybe I can learn the same fine art and make millions!!

[netty]

So what are the other terms of our collective agreement that can now be called discriminatory?

[Brick Head]

The only problem with a stay is that individuals are affected almost daily (turning 60 at AC and being mandatorily retired). In the US, at least they set a cut-off date and made non-retroactivity legislative. This has the potential to drag on for months or years.

-It certainly will be a consideration for the appeals court.

-So will the fact that this decision is not an interpretation of the CRA. It is attempt by the Tribunal to rewrite the CRA and has not yet been vetted by the courts.

-So will the fact that 80 individuals have declared their desire to return. Plus anyone in the last year still has time to apply. Plus all those who show retired on the last equipment bid. A total possible 300+ from the last bid. The ramification to those employed, those about to be furloughed as a result, and the employer are drastic enough that the court will be compelled to make sure what they do sticks.

-So will the fact that no one is starving. The individuals in question, by in large, make more that 1/2 the pilots presently employed, and twice as much as those who they will force out the door on their pension benefit.

A couple of years back I was having beers with a lawyer friend when I first learned that one of the complainants was bringing forward a charter challenge. First thing out of his mouth was it'll take a better part of a decade.

[Brick Head]

The contract in this case is also irrelevant because as it stands right now it is illegal and toand therefore void as it pertains to mandatory retirement.

Rockie,

You could also reword that to say. The contract is still valid and in full force except for the references to mandatory retirement. The question remains. Changing the collective agreement to reflect the law, as is now required, and to make sure the collective wealth is dispersed as intended.

Is that age discrimination or equality?

[tonysoprano]

So what are the other terms of our collective agreement that can now be called discriminatory?

My crew meal pasta had an oriental twist to it the other day. I don't like that!!
I can't tell a dirty joke to a female flight attendant or female pilot!!!
I have to do a medical every six months just because I'm over 40!!!
I can't go to TLV anymore because the YVR crews go there.....
I have to pay taxes on my work parking privilege now....
etc, etc etc...

[Rockie]

The contract in this case is also irrelevant because as it stands right now it is illegal and toand therefore void as it pertains to mandatory retirement.

Rockie,

You could also reword that to say. The contract is still valid and in full force except for the references to mandatory retirement. The question remains. Changing the collective agreement to reflect the law, as is now required, and to make sure the collective wealth is dispersed as intended.

Is that age discrimination or equality?

Of course this does not void the entire contract, only the part that is illegal. But it will have implications on other parts of the contract, and I don't think it's exaggerating to say this will cause significant changes in many, many aspects of our jobs. But how exactly is the open question, and will only be determined by hard thinking and lots of work. I also think it would be a mistake to assume any of the horror scenarios people are conjuring in their heads will come to pass. This is just the initial ruling and we have a long road ahead of us yet.

[Rockie]

So what are the other terms of our collective agreement that can now be called discriminatory?

My crew meal pasta had an oriental twist to it the other day. I don't like that!!

I can't tell a dirty joke to a female flight attendant or female pilot!!!

I have to do a medical every six months just because I'm over 40!!!
I can't go to TLV anymore because the YVR crews go there.....
I have to pay taxes on my work parking privilege now....
etc, etc etc...

I don't know about discriminatory, but dirty jokes to females are sexual harrassment and told to the wrong person can land you in pretty hot water.

[tonysoprano]

I don't know about discriminatory, but dirty jokes to females are sexual harrassment and told to the wrong person can land you in pretty hot water.

See Rocky, this brings up an important point. MOST ladies I work with just love a dirty joke. In fact, that's where I get most of mine. And then there is the minority who think like you that I really feel sorry for cause they are missing the point and can't have any fun at work. Sad. Pathetic. Oh but a judge is on their side so basically I'm fucked and they will make a few bucks and I'll be out of a job. I LUV this country!! Hey Rockie, let's be honest. You couldn't give a rat's ass about SEXUAL harassment. You care about you! And Ray might have told you that maybe, just maybe, you guys not only stand to make history here but you just might be able to make enough doe out of this that you won't have to rely on that doomed pension anyway. Huh?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Even though I am well past sixty ( actually I'm well past seventy. ) I am still young enough to find this infighting among what appears to be heavy iron drivers to be a fascinating real life insight into their world.

[Churrasco]

One never knows what the courts will do. But certainly a stay at this point while the CHRT decision winds its way through to a final conclusion is not out of the realm of probability.

We all must follow the law and direction of the courts as they ebb and flow.

The only problem with a stay is that individuals are affected almost daily (turning 60 at AC and being mandatorily retired). In the US, at least they set a cut-off date and made non-retroactivity legislative. This has the potential to drag on for months or years.

The employment relationship is an economic bond between employer and employee. Therefore, the remedy for the "harm" the complainants may suffer resulting from a stay and then a subsequent decision from a court of inherent jurisdiction that affirms the CHRT's decision is damages. In other words, money. If this case is a winner for the complainants they will get interest on their damages (if any) at the prescribed rate. It will undoubtedly be several more years before the issues raised by the CHRT are fully resolved by the courts. Since the fundamental issue here is the balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of a collective bargaining agent (representing a group of individuals) one would hope that the case makes its way to the Supreme Court of Canada for clarification on some of the principles espoused in the Mckinney case. All things considered, this case is an interesting one from a public policy perspective.

However, I suspect that the employees of Air Canada find little comfort in the fact that they are being used as an instrument to develop public policy in Canada.

[F-16]

Changing the way the pie is split to make it more equal can't be seen as discrimination...

It IS discriminatory to the younger employees of Air Canada to be paid less. Let's open a WHOLE other can of worms and take a page from the flight attendants book (remember their equal pay thing? - which doesn't fly because pilots and flight attendants DON'T have the same jobs).

BUT, now we are comparing apples to apples - we are all pilots, all equally skilled and trained.

Where's my equal pay for equal work?

We can change the way the pie is sliced.

This ruling is ill thought out and has created way too many questions that need to be answered and this will not be solved anytime soon.

[WF9F]

Rockie,
-I am not angry.I know how things are done here at AC with regards to anybody other than the seniors on the wide body. I was actually told a few years ago that your time will come and you will do the same to the junior end as we are doing. That i can say will not happen. I don't subscribe to the eat your young mentality, never have.
-Your concern for the pilots hired older than 25 and the small pension they will recieve is heart warming.I guess that is what you keep telling yourself to try and justify your fight. Sad really. Although greed was not a consideration in the lasting ruling it should have been because we all know deep down that is what drives this beast. I was hired at 38 and had over 12000 hours. I was taking care of my own self directed pension before i came here, with all due respect , let me worry about my pension. I don't need your help.
-It is not about the next bid for the junior pilots we just would like the same oppurtunity you had and not 5 years later.
-I am not closing any doors on myself in the future as you say. I came here with the intent of leaving at 60 and will do so in a heartbeat.With what I have seen here in almost 5 years of work does not compell me to want to stay a second longer than I have too. There are many other things to do other than be a Captain at Air Canada. This profession and this job does not define me.
-I will agree on one thing in that we should work towards changing things in our CA. The work that is going to come from here on in with appeals and so forth will probably not make a difference. It should go toward stripping benefits from the top end of our list to distribute the wealth more equally among all pilots sooner rather than later.

Regards,

WF9F

[JazzJetDriver]

It should go toward stripping benefits from the top end of our list to distribute the wealth more equally among all pilots sooner rather than later.

Now I have heard it all.

For my part, I am happy to see that at least the OAC over 60 types have the opportunity to continue gainful employment, seeing the 300 mil debt that will have to be paid.

[Old fella]

I don't know about discriminatory, but dirty jokes to females are sexual harrassment and told to the wrong person can land you in pretty hot water.

See Rocky, this brings up an important point. MOST ladies I work with just love a dirty joke. In fact, that's where I get most of mine. And then there is the minority who think like you that I really feel sorry for cause they are missing the point and can't have any fun at work. Sad. Pathetic. Oh but a judge is on their side so basically I'm fucked and they will make a few bucks and I'll be out of a job. I LUV this country!! Hey Rockie, let's be honest. You couldn't give a rat's ass about SEXUAL harassment. You care about you! And Ray might have told you that maybe, just maybe, you guys not only stand to make history here but you just might be able to make enough doe out of this that you won't have to rely on that doomed pension anyway. Huh?

.

Exactly! Some(and a good many) of the raunchy jokes I heard(and repeated) came in email attachments as well as verbally from my better half's nursing IC Unit(over 90% female). Good ones, those were.

Example:

Teacher asks kindergarten students what kind of medicines they know and what they are used for...

Mickey: 'Tylenol?'

Teacher: 'Very good! And what is it used for?'
Mickey: 'It is used for headaches.'

Eddie: 'Nytol, Teacher.'
Teacher: 'Excellent. And what is it used for?'
Eddie: 'To help you sleep.'

Now it's Ricky's turn and he says: 'Viagra.'

Teacher, slightly shocked: 'Ricky, what do you think it is used for?'
Ricky: 'It can be used for diarrhea.'
Teacher: 'Who told you this?'
Ricky: 'Nobody, but every evening, my mother tells my father, 'Take a Viagra,

maybe that little shit will get harder.

[tonysoprano]

[Brick Head]

Ahh but that don't count old fella. You picked on a demographic group that is social acceptable to bash. Is part of a majority and not afforded rights under the CHRA.



I like the joke though.

[Rockie]

I don't know about discriminatory, but dirty jokes to females are sexual harrassment and told to the wrong person can land you in pretty hot water.

See Rocky, this brings up an important point. MOST ladies I work with just love a dirty joke. In fact, that's where I get most of mine. And then there is the minority who think like you that I really feel sorry for cause they are missing the point and can't have any fun at work. Sad. Pathetic. Oh but a judge is on their side so basically I'm fucked and they will make a few bucks and I'll be out of a job. I LUV this country!! Hey Rockie, let's be honest. You couldn't give a rat's ass about SEXUAL harassment. You care about you! And Ray might have told you that maybe, just maybe, you guys not only stand to make history here but you just might be able to make enough doe out of this that you won't have to rely on that doomed pension anyway. Huh?

In this discussion I am staying completely impersonal and only addressing the issue. I would encourage you to do the same. On the sidebar of dirty jokes and sexual harrassment I was keeping it impersonal as well and was only stating a fact. Since you have attended many ground school sessions and presumably stayed awake through most of them you know what I said is a fact as well, notwithstanding the fact that most females are not that sensitive. But some are hence the comment:

told to the wrong person can land you in pretty hot water.

Whatever your own personal beliefs on the subject or mine (which you have no idea about) no one can deny the truth in that statement.

This retirement discussion isn't about me so don't make it personal or I will back out and all you angry men can yell at each other. Discuss the merits, but getting personal is what robbed you of your other outlet, the ACPA forum.

[tonysoprano]

No, I didn't partake in that debacle. On this forum, call it personal or whatever but I think we have a pretty good idea of your personality and beliefs. And yes it does count for something otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this age thing. But it's only opinion.

[Rockie]

No, I didn't partake in that debacle. On this forum, call it personal or whatever but I think we have a pretty good idea of your personality and beliefs. And yes it does count for something otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this age thing. But it's only opinion.

Opinion as long as it's not personal. People completely separate from this industry are making the decisions that we all have to abide by because they are law. The only way it can be made to work in a way that benefits everybody as much as possible is if there is calm discussion about it, otherwise I can guarantee nobody will be happy with the result. I have a pretty good idea about your personality and beliefs too, and think that you are capable of discussing issues without slinging mud. Don't ruin that impression.

The second it gets personal is the second that person ceases to be useful in this discussion that desperately needs to take place because 60+ is no longer hypothetical. It's here and we have to deal with it.

[yycflyguy]

I don't know about discriminatory, but dirty jokes to females are sexual harrassment and told to the wrong person can land you in pretty hot water.

See Rocky, this brings up an important point. MOST ladies I work with just love a dirty joke. In fact, that's where I get most of mine. And then there is the minority who think like you that I really feel sorry for cause they are missing the point and can't have any fun at work. Sad. Pathetic...

Sounds like you are ready to have fun fun fun at Westjet! JJJ - get the blueberry kool-aid ready for another cultist!

[WF9F]

JazzJetDriver,
It is called status pay, and other items to help all instead of a few. Being from where you are sitting I can see your enjoyment in all of this. Couldn't make the move up top could you???