Bill to ban mandatory retirement...even Air Canada pilots

[Max111]

Today, the federal government Minister for Seniors, Ms. Diane Ablonczy, issued a statement indicating that the federal government is planning to eliminate mandatory retirement in the federal sector. A Canadian Press summary of the statement can be found at:

http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/rss/article/1131117

I know that this was introduced as a private member's bill in the previous session ...but this is significantly different and has some important ramifications. Not a lawyer but here's my take.............This will be introduced as a government bill, by the ruling party and put forward by a Minister of the Crown. It will take the Supreme Court of Canada out of any possible delaying tactics. Much like what happened in the USA when George W. signed into law that pilots be allowed to fly till 65 with Part 121 carriers [ US Airlines]...........that happened on December 13, 2006. Granted, it will most likely not happened till 2011 BUT there are three cases pending, one before the Federal Court and two before the CHRT which will make the argument moot for us But then again, what do I know.

Max111

[Brick Head]

They also drew a line in the sand. Usually giving companies a long time to prepare and adapt. Before this date old rules. After? New rules. Most provincial gov't if not all have done the same thing.

They have also intervened to make sure groups can still end load a specific age for pension purposes. The very reason for mandatory retirement. IOW you still retire. Still collect your pension. But you have the option of continuing to work under separate work rules. Look no further than the Ontario teachers. They have a good gig by the way. Perfectly legal in every province.

This is however where the matter belongs. Neither the CHRT nor the Sup court should be setting public policy based on narrow jurisdictions.

My guess is the gov't is concerned about what public policy will, or might be set by the CHRT. How it is implemented and what are the broad based implications. They should be. What happens for instance, if the CHRT goes a completely different direction than what law makers have done at the provincial level? Will it unwind what has already developed at that level? Decisions made by bodies with narrow jurisdictions will very likely not produce an outcome for the greater good.

[Max111]

Yes ...You are right....They do and did draw a line in the sand regarding reinstatement. It was agreed among the parties that Air Canada would have a three month window before pilots would be allowed to return due to a number of rule changes. It was also agreed that this time period would not apply to Vilven/Kelly. On the issue of whether there was a surplus of pilots or the need to hire, it was also agreed that this would not be a factor and if reinstatement was ordered, these two pilots would return.

I believe it is a sad commentary that the membership is not being informed of these types of decisions by the executive of the union. Lots more...but enough said.

[Brick Head]

I believe it is a sad commentary that the membership is not being informed of these types of decisions by the executive of the union. Lots more...but enough said.

If the membership had shown up either in person, or on line at the last MEC meeting they would.

Putting things in print when being sued is bad advise.

[Mechanic787]

I believe it is a sad commentary that the membership is not being informed of these types of decisions by the executive of the union. Lots more...but enough said.

If the membership had shown up either in person, or on line at the last MEC meeting they would.

Putting things in print when being sued is bad advise.

As I understand it from pilots that I know, ACPA members are not allowed to attend an MEC meeting without being invited. Did you mean the Toronto Council meeting?

[Brick Head]

yes

[Mechanic787]

yes

So ACPA has then yet to advise the 3,000-plus members who either were not entitled to attend the Toronto meeting, or who were not able to attend the Toronto meeting about the current state of affairs?

Just curious.

[Brick Head]

yes

So ACPA has then yet to advise the 3,000-plus members who either were not entitled to attend the Toronto meeting, or who were not able to attend the Toronto meeting about the current state of affairs?

Just curious.

No. There is also an MEC newsletter out.

For a more in depth presentation of course, one would need to contact a union member or attend a base meeting.

This whole accusation that ACPA has not informed the membership through this process is jaded. What is really meant is that they don't like the information we have been provided. That only their opinion of HOW this will unfold should be conveyed.

The real dispute has always centered around HOW and not IF. Where human rights ends and labor law begins. Where is that line in the sand? Despite claims to the contrary by the fly past 60 crowd, we understand that. In fact IMO I would suggest it is the other side that hasn't really understood the battle ground (for lack of a better word) very well. They seem to be under the impression that Human rights legislation extends way into the preview of a union and companies collective bargaining rights. That is what is, and will continue to be, vehemently opposed.

In fact you all will notice that since there is agreement that V&K will come back as FO's? No opposition.

[Mechanic787]

Wow. It sure looks a lot more complicated here than one would expect here in Canada, given how the changes everywhere else were made with little fanfare or turbulence.

Given the obvious conflicts within your groups, do you see this ever being resolved effectively? What will happen in your cockpits if know parties on opposite sides of the dispute are forced to work together after these guys are reinstated?

[Brick Head]

Wow. It sure looks a lot more complicated here than one would expect here in Canada, given how the changes everywhere else were made with little fanfare or turbulence.

Only at the Federal level. Only because for the moment we are in flux. In transition. At a point where mandatory retirement at the federal level is still legal, yet we have a CHRT refusing to allow it. Legislation is long over due, and the lack of it is what has caused the turbulence. That is finally being addressed.

Given the obvious conflicts within your groups, do you see this ever being resolved effectively? What will happen in your cockpits if know parties on opposite sides of the dispute are forced to work together after these guys are reinstated?

So far provincial legislation has not prevented the common practice ( the purpose of mandatory retirement in the first place) of end loading a specific age for the purpose of increased pension benefit. As long as the same happens at the Federal level this will pass us by with little fan fare. Politicians wanting to be responsible for smaller pensions, because they didn't protect the right of a union to end load a specific age, in the absence of mandatory retirement? I doubt it. Didn't happen at the Provincial level.

Even the logic of the CHRT in the V&K ruling backs this. Simply put they said if the deferred compensation system can be protected by means other than mandatory retirement? Why have mandatory retirement at all?

[co-joe]

Will you old geezers hurry up and retire already! What's taking so long? Isn't there a beach somewhere calling your name or something?

[accumulous]

"Will you old geezers hurry up and retire already! What's taking so long? Isn't there a beach somewhere calling your name or something?"

Actually there are several beaches - layovers in Ogg, Hnl, Koa, Mia, SYD, etc. See you there.

[mduffy]

See you there? Most of us will never see those places once the list stops moving... Send pics.

[JayDee]

McDuffy,

Your answer is just a tad melodramatic Duffy but if you really want to see those destination's (with the exception of MIA,) I suggest you begin by doing something under your control.

Transfer to Vancouver for starters.

JayDee

[bcflyer]

McDuffy,

Your answer is just a tad melodramatic Duffy but if you really want to see those destination's (with the exception of MIA,) I suggest you begin by doing something under your control.

Transfer to Vancouver for starters.

JayDee

Transfer to Vancouver? LOL Have you tried that lately? I've been trying to get out there for the last 2 yrs. So far no luck. (and I'm bidding the most junior spot on the base..) As well to get to those places you would need to be on a widebody (have a look and see how senior those spots go in YVR)

[Raymond Hall]

So far provincial legislation has not prevented the common practice (the purpose of mandatory retirement in the first place) of end loading a specific age for the purpose of increased pension benefit.

Historically, mandatory retirement was never intended to provide for the end-load of pension benefits. That may have happened, in isolated circumstances, but that was never the justification for or the intention of the provision, articulated or otherwise. Mandatory retirement was allowed to recognize the historical relationship between younger and older workers, and to allow for a progression of skill development and opportunities in the limited workplace. When mandatory retirement was proposed as an exemption to the Canadian Human Rights Act general prohibition on discrimination on the basis of age, the Canada Labour Congress, the largest union group in the country, submitted a brief to the Parliamentary Committee reviewing the proposed legislation, opposing the provision, because of its potential systemic discrimination impact re age. The exemption was subsequently allowed under very restrictive conditions ("normal age of retirement" only).

Since the end of the last two decades of the last century, all of the reasons for permitting mandatory retirement have come into question. The political imperatives of the last century are now almost completely out of place with the imperatives of today, given the mobile, technologically advanced, and shrinking labour force numbers at the entry level of today's labour market. Put that together with the increasing healthiness, viability and numbers of the seniors workers, combined with the economic factors related to pension issues, and you create a whole new political dynamic, not even considering the human rights issues of discrimination related to age.

May you live in interesting times!

[Brick Head]

So far provincial legislation has not prevented the common practice (the purpose of mandatory retirement in the first place) of end loading a specific age for the purpose of increased pension benefit.

Historically, mandatory retirement was never intended to provide for the end-load of pension benefits. That may have happened, in isolated circumstances, but that was never the justification for or the intention of the provision, articulated or otherwise.

Raymond,

Isolated?????????????????

Both Professionals. Yours included, said otherwise at the V&K hearings before the CHRT. Mandatory retirements purpose has been to end load compensation for the benefit of retires pensions. Deferred compensation, deferred until later in ones work life, boosts the best five years and thus the pension. Two thing will happen simultaneously if mandatory retirement is abolished, and with it the ability to end load a specific age.

1.)Post retirement workers will take someone else's deferred compensation. Compensation not ear marked for them by the bargaining agent. The sole decider of who get what when.

2.) Retiring at the previous normal age of retirement for those that wish, will mean smaller pensions.

This must be prevented as has been done at the provincial level. It must be prevented because it is not in the best interests of young workers or retires alike. The only ones who would benefit are a minority at the top of the pile when the change happens. The majority will see lower wages through their current normal age of retirement, and a smaller pension as a result.



[29] Dr. Jonathan Kessselman, a labour economist at Simon Fraser University in the graduate
program of Public Policy, testified that............

[30] Deferred compensation is the practice of paying workers less than their productivity in
earlier years and more than their productivity in later years. In addition, most deferred
compensation systems, like that of Air Canada, provide deferred benefits such as pensions and post-retirement benefits that rise with the worker’s tenure.

[37] However, Professor Carmichael does not necessarily subscribe to these alternatives. The
abolition of mandatory retirement would allow the current generation of older workers to keep all of the benefits of a deferred compensation system and avoid the responsibility that comes with those benefits – passing them on when their time to retire comes.

The Boards comments.

In the light of the above-noted considerations, can it be said that the goal of permitting
mandatory retirement to be negotiated in the workplace continues to be of pressing and
substantial importance? The alternatives to mandatory retirement, which are in use in other
jurisdictions, effectively preserve the benefits of the current system without infringing a
constitutionally protected right. How then can the goal of permitting freedom of contract in this area be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutional right?

May I ask how you suggest we preserve the benefits of the current system without the continuation of end loading a specific age? Even if people work past that age?

It isn't possible

[yycflyguy]

This is not about fairness. It is about law.

- Raymond Hall, 2010