Retirement - Split from Hiring

[Rockie]

Excellent post Rockie !!!!! Their degree of entitlement staggers the imagination.

Max111

I just have to comment on the sense of entitlement that exists here at Air Canada, but it is not directed at you or anybody else specifically Max111.

The sense of entitlement has been here for a long, long time. It shocks me how junior pilots have it too, but they come by it honestly because they have terrible examples in this airline to look up (or down) to. There is no demographic in this airline that doesn't need to take a long critical look at themselves in the mirror.

Our compensation system is based on entitlement. Everybody started out with shitty pay and conditions, and their advanced seniority entitles them to the rewards denied them when they were junior. That's why junior pilots still are treated so embarrassingly poorly by the flag airline of this nation. If it weren't for the entitlement of the senior ranks more money would be directed toward the bottom so people could at least work here and not go into debt.

[yycflyguy]

Rockie,

I am noticing a bit of a shift in your attitude towards your colleagues. Although I don't agree with your interpretation of flypast60, I did admire how you debated your side with logic and with direct reference to legal discrimination rulings. Again, I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation but have actually gained something from you voicing your side. You still haven't (or will) convert me but I am troubled how you are stooping to the level of frustration of name calling and belittling your colleagues.

That's a post illustrating people who've chosen lifestyle over career progression. You're not offering those who's careers will be stalled Christmas off or summer holidays. There is no lifestyle increase with people refusing to leave. If anything there would be a decrease in lifestyle as the junior people get frustrated with crappy money and crappy lifestyle and take leaves, dragging those above them down in relative seniority.

If you were offering me 8 day months, August off, December block finished by the 15th I'd certainly think a lot more of the fly past 60 crew. Instead, they want to keep all that, and take more from the trough. It's okay what's another 5 years of 17-19 dpg days months on reserve if it helps the guys on top after all?

Do you seriously think getting Christmas off or summer holidays takes precedence over age discrimination? Try going to the CHRT with a lame ass argument like that and you'll get spanked like the child you come across as.

Sepia was illustrating how career stagnation affects not only advancements in pay but also advancements in lifestyle which, for many, is much more important than their salary. It was a valid point. It is hard for the juniors to be working the least desirable flying for the least amount of compensation only to find out that 5 years in, the finish line for this lifestyle has been changed by the very demographic that told us to "suck it up, I had to go through flat pay too".

Our compensation system is based on entitlement. Everybody started out with shitty pay and conditions, and their advanced seniority entitles them to the rewards denied them when they were junior. That's why junior pilots still are treated so embarrassingly poorly by the flag airline of this nation. If it weren't for the entitlement of the senior ranks more money would be directed toward the bottom so people could at least work here and not go into debt.

Agreed. If the flypast60s are inevitably going to be here they go to the bottom of the seniority list. If they cry discrimination then it opens up litigation for all pilots at the junior ranks as it was not discriminatory to them when they went through it. Do you think the company, CHRT or ACPA would want to open that can of worms? I have made several tongue in cheek comments regarding my pending litigation that with equal pay for equal work I have been wronged with my salary to date and that I should have been paid 777 FO wages from day 1. Along with 700 other potential claimants. All CAs & FOs responsibilities are the same, regardless of equipment or where they go.

There has to be a middle ground, otherwise this spirals even more-so out of control. The discrimination card is a weak argument IMHO. ACPA and its pie from the company should and will be able to split it as the members want. That is the ideal.

Respectfully,
your colleague

[Rockie]

You still haven't (or will) convert me but I am troubled how you are stooping to the level of frustration of name calling and belittling your colleagues.

If you think that's name calling then I'm dying to hear your thoughts on the rest that goes on here, and especially in the ACPA forum. But you're right, I at times get a little frustated. I try not to and when I do I try and go away for awhile, but sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.

This is not a change initiated by a few Air Canada pilots as I've stated here dozens of times, and anybody who reads a newpaper should already know. Mandatory retirement is dead in Canada. Not Air Canada...CANADA! Get it everyone?

There are also a million things that effect not only a person's movement up the seniority ladder, but their very job itself. This age 60 thing is just one of them. If anybody comes in the door expecting their career to unfold just the way they planned they will end up disappointed. Unrealistic expectations are the trademark of an immature child, not an aware, intelligent adult. I consider myself and my colleagues intelligent professionals, so when I see one behaving like an immature child with ridiculous demands and expectations (see previous post on entitlement) I call it the way I see it.

If you're looking to see contrition on my part for doing that you will be disappointed.

Sepia was illustrating how career stagnation affects not only advancements in pay but also advancements in lifestyle which, for many, is much more important than their salary.

Obviously. My point in the post he was responding to is that the vast majority of us voluntarily stagnate our own careers in favour of better schedules etc. So... it's more than a little hypocritical don't you think for ACPA and others to complain so bitterly about the small amount of stagnation ending age discrimination in CANADA will cause?

If the flypast60s are inevitably going to be here they go to the bottom of the seniority list. If they cry discrimination then it opens up litigation for all pilots at the junior ranks as it was not discriminatory to them when they went through it. Do you think the company, CHRT or ACPA would want to open that can of worms?

Pardon me if this seems harsh, but you need to do a lot more reading about age discrimination.

[Martin Tamme]

Mandatory retirement is dead in Canada. Not Air Canada...CANADA!

So can the Air Canada flights attendants now go beyond Age 65? Please don't say they can't because they first have to apply to the CHRT.

If the present rules are that everyone in Canada can go beyond 65, then it should apply to everyone. Unless of course that is not the case, and each individual/group still has to fight to go beyond 65. If each person/group still has to fight, then mandatory retirement is not dead.

P.S. I don't see any changes until the Canadian Human Rights Act is changed, and it will take Parliament to change that one (not the Courts and definately not the CHRT).

[Rockie]

Mandatory retirement is dead in Canada. Not Air Canada...CANADA!

So can the Air Canada flights attendants now go beyond Age 65? Please don't say they can't because they first have to apply to the CHRT.

If the present rules are that everyone in Canada can go beyond 65, then it should apply to everyone. Unless of course that is not the case, and each individual/group still has to fight to go beyond 65. If each person/group still has to fight, then mandatory retirement is not dead.

P.S. I don't see any changes until the Canadian Human Rights Act is changed, and it will take Parliament to change that one (not the Courts and definately not the CHRT).

This has been said a thousand times before, and I don't know why Air Canada pilots are having such trouble accepting the fact Canadian law applies to us.

Every jurisdiction in Canada except federal has tossed out mandatory retirement as age discriminatory. The federal government has legislation working its way through parliament right this very minute that will do the same making it a clean sweep all across the country.

Air Canada is a federally regulated industry, so until the law is passed age related mandatory retirement is not illegal. ACPA and Air Canada are fighting the CHRT ruling because they chose to not apply 15(1)(c) of the charter allowing age related retirement. That is not surprising because allowing it flies in the face of every other jurisdiction in the country and soon to be federal as well. ACPA thinks because the rule is still on the book the CHRT is compelled to allow it. That is not the case.

But even if ACPA wins, age related mandatory retirement is gone...dead...kaput...over. What will they have won?

Because this is not industry specific but a matter of law, it applies to the flight attendants as well. They will not have an age related mandatory retirement age unless they make a case for BFOR. Just like the pilots.

Air Canada and ACPA have got to get over this delusion that they are somehow special and therefore exempt from Canadian law.

[Martin Tamme]

Air Canada is a federally regulated industry, so until the law is passed age related mandatory retirement is not illegal. ACPA and Air Canada are fighting the CHRT ruling because they chose to not apply 15(1)(c) of the charter allowing age related retirement.

Thank you, that's the statement we've all been looking for.

As it stands right now, mandatory retirement is not illegal in Canada for federally regulated corporations as long as the retirement is done at the "normal age of retirement" (Section 15(1)(c)). The CHRT chose to ignore this provision.

As such, the Federal Courts will have no choice but to overrule the CHRT's decision, because the Courts have to enforce the law as they stand on the books - they cannot make their own law if they don't like said law, or think the law will change at a future date. As such, as it presently stands, it is LEGAL to terminate someone on the basis of his/her age.

I'm not saying that the law will never change. Yes, Judy Sgro (Liberal who is known for protecting the rights of foreign strippers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Sgro ) has brought a Private Members Bill in front of Parliament. However, what percentage of Private Members Bills are passed into law? For your info, it's a very low percentage. Also, as soon as an election is called, all Private Member Bills in progress are automatically killed.

Again, not saying Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act will never change, however it's not going to happen either today or tomorrow - 10 years from now... Maybe... but not now.

[Martin Tamme]

From the above wikipedia URL for those who do not know what's Judy Sgro's present role is:


Sgro is now the Opposition Critic for Veterans Affairs, Seniors & Pensions for the Liberals

[Rockie]

Thank you, that's the statement we've all been looking for.

How hard have you been looking? It's been said dozens of time already.

As it stands right now, mandatory retirement is not illegal in Canada for federally regulated corporations as long as the retirement is done at the "normal age of retirement" (Section 15(1)(c)). The CHRT chose to ignore this provision.

Correct. Boldly stated in their ruling.

As such, the Federal Courts will have no choice but to overrule the CHRT's decision, because the Courts have to enforce the law as they stand on the books - they cannot make their own law if they don't like said law, or think the law will change at a future date.

Incorrect. They are not making a law, they are choosing to not apply a particular section of it because it conflicts with today's values. Not unlike weird laws that remain on the books but are decades out of date. You know the kind...like hitching your horse in front of a saloon. That kind of stuff. Old, outdated laws are ignored all the time. The courts are under no obligation to enforce them 100% of the time. Furthermore, this one has been removed in every jurisdiction in the country but federal, and it is soon to be there as well. The fact that it's still on the books doesn't mean the CHRT has to apply it. That is totally within their jurisdiction.

As such, as it presently stands, it is LEGAL to terminate someone on the basis of his/her age.

No it's not. The CHRT has ruled it age discrimination. They aren't the first to do that either, they are the last. So they aren't setting any precedent to dispute here.

Again, not saying Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act will never change, however it's not going to happen either today or tomorrow - 10 years from now... Maybe... but not now.

A private members bill eliminating this has already died as a result of an election. I doubt very much this one will. The federal government is woefully out of step by taking as long as they have and being the very last jurisdiction in the country to get rid of it. If ACPA wins this case you can bet there will be a lot of very embarrassing press on it for the government and the courts. For that reason I doubt very much ACPA will win the JR. Even if they do, the government will be extremely embarrassed that they allowed this to happen and you will see a rocket attached to the back of the private members bill.

Even if ACPA wins...they lose.

I haven't even mentioned the embarrassment our pilot group will endure by fighting so hard to defend age discrimination. We deserve the dinosaur label we will have earned.

[Martin Tamme]

They are not making a law, they are choosing to not apply a particular section of it because it conflicts with today's values.

I don't believe they can do that. The Courts (or CHRT in this matter) are not the people who determine Canadian morals or values; only Parliament can do that.

This issue (mandatory retirement) has been brought to Parliament twice within the past 20 years: Once in 1993 and then again in 2001. In both cases, Parliament decided not to touch it.

What gives a Court or a Tribunal the right to define our values when Parliament chose on two separate occasions not to re-define them? Please don't tell me that Canadian values have changed within the past 9 years. However, let's assume they have; Parliament would then have to re-define them; not the Courts, who are only here to uphold the law.

The next thing we know, the Courts are going to rule that the Canadian Constitution is unconstitutional because of the inclusion of the "Not Withstanding Clause". It's part of the document, even though the "Not Withstanding Clause" on it's own is unconstitutional. The same thing can be said in this case: Section 15.1 (c) is still part of the document and cannot be ignored by a Court, even if they think that section is illegal (much like the Not Withstanding Clause).

[Rockie]

Rockie wrote:
They are not making a law, they are choosing to not apply a particular section of it because it conflicts with today's values.


I don't believe they can do that. The Courts (or CHRT in this matter) are not the people who determine Canadian morals or values; only Parliament can do that.

That's where you and ACPA are wrong. The CHRT is charged with applying the Canadian Human Rights Act. The CHRA's purpose is to prevent discrimination of individuals.

Section 50(2) of the CHRA describes the powers of the CHRT with regards to rules of law:

Power to Determine questions of law or fact

50 (2) In the course of hearing and determining any matter under inquiry, the member or panel may decide all questions of law or fact necessary to determining the matter.

The exemptions allowing discriminatory practices under very limited circumstances that ACPA is basing their entire argument on are decided wholly at the CHRT's discretion. That power is specifically given them under the Act as you can see. ACPA doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Rockie]

It is amazing how just about every thread in the Air Canada forum gets hijacked to the age 60 debate.

Yes and very encouraging for people who want to work there one day

The status of this particular thread pales in comparison to the importance of the information it has been hijacked by. The information this discussion has generated on this forum cannot be obtained in any other way. It certainly isn't offered up by ACPA.

I would much rather this debate be conducted in-house so the attitudes of a lot of our members isn't on public display. But that is not possible on the ACPA forum, and no other avenue is open to those of us who want a proper airing of the pros and cons of ACPA's position in a civilized manner. Kudos to the moderators who have interjected where necessary to keep the decorum far above what ACPA permits on their forum, but otherwise are invisible. Kudos also to those participating in this discussion in keeping the decorum up and minimizing the incidences where moderator intervention is required.

If you are contemplating a job with Air Canada you should be very glad you have a seat in the observation booth to see what kind of organization you are getting in to.

[circlingfor69]

Rockie if this organization is so bad, PLEASE LEAVE! That would truly make this place better for the vast majority of pilots at AC.

[Rockie]

Rockie if this organization is so bad, PLEASE LEAVE! That would truly make this place better for the vast majority of pilots at AC.

Hmmm. Very thoughtful.

What are your insights into the information in this post?

That's where you and ACPA are wrong. The CHRT is charged with applying the Canadian Human Rights Act. The CHRA's purpose is to prevent discrimination of individuals.

Section 50(2) of the CHRA describes the powers of the CHRT with regards to rules of law:

Power to Determine questions of law or fact

50 (2) In the course of hearing and determining any matter under inquiry, the member or panel may decide all questions of law or fact necessary to determining the matter.

The exemptions allowing discriminatory practices under very limited circumstances that ACPA is basing their entire argument on are decided wholly at the CHRT's discretion. That power is specifically given them under the Act as you can see. ACPA doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[circlingfor69]

Rockie,

How you PERVERT the HRA to your own greedy end is a disgrace. The fact that you are willing to abuse legislation that's true purpose is to protect people who are actually having their rights trampled, in a vain attmept to remain part of a company and pilot group you obviously hold such disdain for, is not only laughable it's shameful!

[Rockie]

I'm sorry, your answer isn't quite clear. So you think the CHRT may decide all questions of law or fact necessary to determine the matter as stipulated in the act, or don't you? Give me your interpretation of section 50 (2) of the act please?

[circlingfor69]

Answer my question... Why are so hell bent on remaining part of a company and pilot group you hold in such low moral comparison to yourself.

[Rockie]

I love my job.

Now, how about you answer my question. Give me your thoughts on whether or not the CHRT was within their rights as laid out in the CHRA.

[Rockie]

I love my job.

Now, how about you answer my question. Give me your thoughts on whether or not the CHRT was within their rights as laid out in the CHRA.

Does anybody else hear crickets chirping?

[circlingfor69]

Sorry for the delay rockie...I do have a life outside of this forum.

As for your response how does simply saying "I love my job" account for the fact that you have clear disdain for your fellow employees and your employer?????? If you love to fly so much but hate this company, after you retire at 60, why not go work somewhere that is more intune with the high moral ground you seem to think you inhabit? You seem to love to point out that ACPA is the evil agent trouncing your god given right to sit in the left seat of a 777 until die. The company is just as much against your twisted crusade as the pilot group is! It is my personal belief that the supreme court is going to get a little twitchy when asked to rewrite a contract that has been mutually agreed upon by employer and employee.

So I ask again why do you want to work for a COMPANY and be part of a PILOT GROUP that is so out of step with your moral standards???

As for my views in the CHRA. As I mentioned a couple of posts ago, I feel the outlying purpose of this legislation is to protect the BASIC human rights of our citizens. For example, rights such as the freedom to practice your chosen religious and cultural beliefs.

By your logic the scope of human rights abuses are endless:
-15 year olds are discriminated against for not being allowed to drink, smoke, or drive a car.
-Liberals are discriminated against because the conservatives form our current government
-Overweight brunettes are discriminated against by Joey Tomatoes hiring practices
-I am discriminated against by Air Canada because I want to where a black uniform, eventhough I knew very well when I was hired that the uniform is navy blue.

WHERE DOES THIS INSANITY END?

It's not an abuse of your human rights simply because you do not agree with it!

The fly past 60 coalition is perverting an act that's purpose is to protect against the malice and evil that sadly does exist in our society. (Although luckily for us in a much more limited scope compared to other countries.) However you want to spin it, it is not your right to work at Air Canada until you see fit to retire. There is no one stopping you from taking an oversees contract when you are 60 and collecting a pension from AC at the same time. (Which would be really sweet.)

I hope this satifies your question.

Cheers

[Rockie]

As for your response how does simply saying "I love my job" account for the fact that you have clear disdain for your fellow employees and your employer??????

You haven't been doing your reading.

I consider myself and my colleagues intelligent professionals, so when I see one behaving like an immature child with ridiculous demands and expectations (see previous post on entitlement) I call it the way I see it.

You seem to love to point out that ACPA is the evil agent trouncing your god given right to sit in the left seat of a 777 until die. The company is just as much against your twisted crusade as the pilot group is!

If you had done your reading you would know I will never see the seat of any widebody at Air Canada. You would also know I have the same opinion of the company's actions in this issue. The difference is the company doesn't represent me...ACPA does.

It is my personal belief that the supreme court is going to get a little twitchy when asked to rewrite a contract that has been mutually agreed upon by employer and employee.

This has nothing to do with the contract and everything to do with Canadian Law. No contract can violate Canadian Law and it would be very strange indeed if the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter allowed it. Once again if you had been doing your reading...

I feel the outlying purpose of this legislation is to protect the BASIC human rights of our citizens. For example, rights such as the freedom to practice your chosen religious and cultural beliefs.

You are correct here. To that list you can add age discrimination which is what this is all about. Read, read, read.

It's not an abuse of your human rights simply because you do not agree with it!

Correct again. It is an abuse of my (and your) human right because the CHRT says it is. Keep up please.

The fly past 60 coalition is perverting an act that's purpose is to protect against the malice a evil that sadly does exist in our society.

The flypast 60 coalition has no power to pervert the act. They are also bit players in the big scheme of things because every province and territory in this country has already thrown out the provision allowing normal age of retirement. The federal government is in the process of doing the same. All without any input whatsoever from Air Canada pilots. Is it possible the world doesn't revolve around us?

However you want to spin it, it is not your right to work at Air Canada until you see fit to retire.

As of August 28th, 2009 it is. Look it up.

There is no one stopping you from taking an oversees contract when you are 60 and collecting a pension from AC at the same time. (Which would be really sweet.)

Correct again. But now there is nobody forcing me out of Air Canada at age 60 so I can continue to work here if I choose. So can you when you turn 60.

And no. You didn't even try to address the question I asked. Would you like to try again?

[Jaques Strappe]

It is amazing how just about every thread in the Air Canada forum gets hijacked to the age 60 debate.

Yes and very encouraging for people who want to work there one day

The status of this particular thread pales in comparison to the importance of the information it has been hijacked by. The information this discussion has generated on this forum cannot be obtained in any other way. It certainly isn't offered up by ACPA.

I would much rather this debate be conducted in-house so the attitudes of a lot of our members isn't on public display. But that is not possible on the ACPA forum, and no other avenue is open to those of us who want a proper airing of the pros and cons of ACPA's position in a civilized manner. Kudos to the moderators who have interjected where necessary to keep the decorum far above what ACPA permits on their forum, but otherwise are invisible. Kudos also to those participating in this discussion in keeping the decorum up and minimizing the incidences where moderator intervention is required.

If you are contemplating a job with Air Canada you should be very glad you have a seat in the observation booth to see what kind of organization you are getting in to.

Rockie

I would suggest that you guys start your own thread and leave all this crap in there. While I try to respect everyones opinions, after reading in one of your posts stating that you are one of the bottom 500 guys, I have to wonder why you ever applied to Air canada in the first place? You knew what the gig was going in and nobody was holding a gun to your head.

Debate it all you want but why monopolize the entire "Air Canada" board doing it?

[Rockie]

While I try to respect everyones opinions, after reading in one of your posts stating that you are one of the bottom 500 guys, I have to wonder why you ever applied to Air canada in the first place? You knew what the gig was going in and nobody was holding a gun to your head.

That old lame argument again? Things change Jaques. If it makes you feel any better I'm not one of the guys taking this to the tribunal, but I do agree with them that forced retirement is age discrimination. Apparently every province, territory, and soon to be federal government agrees as well...not to mention the CHRT. I think you're capable of more intelligent argument than that. If you can't come up with one that actually addresses the issue then I guess it means you have none.

Debate it all you want but why monopolize the entire "Air Canada" board doing it?

For crying out loud, could we be a little grown up about this?

[Old fella]

Rockie

I would suggest that you guys start your own thread and leave all this crap in there. While I try to respect everyones opinions, after reading in one of your posts stating that you are one of the bottom 500 guys, I have to wonder why you ever applied to Air canada in the first place? You knew what the gig was going in and nobody was holding a gun to your head.

Debate it all you want but why monopolize the entire "Air Canada" board doing it?


No.......... don't quit this topic. It's getting quite entertaining for us old goats who have nothing better to do, read and perish the thought, comment on this board. Listening to the dick swinging boys from Air Canada duke it out over, of all things, the magical 60 yrs old. An age many, if not all of you posters haven't reached yet but I have and permit me share a little secret based on living experience. Some of you are not gonna see 60yrs of age. Shocking thing to say but heart attacks/cancer/car, bike, boat, skidoo accidents/ falling off roofs/skiing off a hill into a rock/run down by a drunk driver/falling down the stairs/electrocution/plane crashes....... you probably get the hint by now as the man with the sickle is lurking around the corner ready to grab you and he will get some. Always did, shall now and will happen.
Anyway….. carry on!!!!

[Johnny#5]

haha...exactly....one of these new FlyPast60 AC pilots will drop dead one day at the age of 64 somewhere at FL350 then the government will have to come up with answers.

What about passenger rights? I don't want to be a passenger on a large jet that has a Captain in their possibly medically unstable mid-sixties, plus I don't want my tax dollars going to bail out AC again when they can't afford the over-paid under-worked 60+ pilots who won't leave.

Just my 1-cent opinion....Great arguments on here though.

[Inverted2]

haha...exactly....one of these new FlyPast60 AC pilots will drop dead one day at the age of 64 somewhere at FL350 then the government will have to come up with answers.

What about passenger rights? I don't want to be a passenger on a large jet that has a Captain in their possibly medically unstable mid-sixties, plus I don't want my tax dollars going to bail out AC again when they can't afford the over-paid under-worked 60+ pilots who won't leave.

Just my 1-cent opinion....Great arguments on here though.

Dude, get over it already. You are allowed to fly to 65 at pretty much any other airline in North America and you dont hear about pilots dropping dead. You make it sound like the 65 retirement is a totally new concept. What rock have you guys been under?