CHRT Remedy Ruling?

[bcflyer]

I don't care if you work till you die. There are alot of airlines out there that would be more than happy to hire you.. Oh wait, you wouldn't get all the perks you have here. You know, the ones you gained by all the guys front of you leaving at age 60....
You can quote all the legal mumble jumble you want. The fact of the matter is, you all kept your mouths closed and enjoyed the ride, and now that its time for you to gracefully exit stage left and allow the rest of us the same opportunities you had, you've decided it violates your "human rights"

[accumulous]

"The fact of the matter is, you all kept your mouths closed and enjoyed the ride, and now that its time for you to gracefully exit stage left and allow the rest of us the same opportunities you had, you've decided it violates your "human rights"

Wrong again. As has been pointed out literally so many hundreds of times, Parliament decides Human Rights issues and discrimination of the basis of age is one of the many prohibited grounds of discrimination, as it is all over the free world. Nobody has 'decided' that anything violates their Human Rights. That has already been decided. As with the case of every flying organization in North America the group has to find the way to deal with it with the best possible solution, with a process that in and of itself does not continue to violate fundamental rights. Has your group looked into that? No. Are they going to? Not likely.

[Brick Head]

Yes, the ability to retire at 60 is a privilege. No one is taking that privilege away from you. Just don't interfere with my RIGHT to work past 60, if I want to.

Well summed up. Because basically that's it. And by that I mean? That's it.

So how do we do that equitably may I ask? How do we "preserve the benefit" of mandatory retirement at 60 by other means. Not just the ability to retire at 60 as we do now, but with the present benefit preserved?

As you rightfully point out it is a Human Right to choose when one will retire, or soon will be anyway.


However it is not a Human Right to;

-Take someone else's deferred compensation.

-Have a specific job title beyond 60. As long as it is not seen as demeaning and punitive due age. Being an FO, is it demeaning?

-Reduce other peoples pension so you can have more than allotted you by the bargaining agent.

-Remove other peoples ability to retire at 60, even if it is just financially.

-Redistribute the collective wealth from what was intended by the bargaining agent.

All these things are related to distribution of the collective wealth. They have nothing to do with Human Rights. The CHRT has no jurisdiction over them. You guys had such an opportunity to be the champions of Human Rights. Instead it has been used as an opportunity. An opportunity to redirect the collect wealth in your favor, against the will of the membership, and the bargaining agent, who by law is the sole decider of who gets what, when.

If you are successful, which I doubt you will at the end of the day, you will have had to convince the CHRT, the appellate courts, and the Sup court that the Tribunal has the right to redistribute bargaining capital as they see fit.

I am very interested to see how the Tribunal treads this line during remedy and how the federal government treads it with legislation.

For now I will wait for their direction. Will they follow the provinces lead? Will they open that up, and start a new direction? At the moment it is basically a free for all at the federal level, everyone vying for what ever they can keep/take. Anarchy. That would be the law makers fault for not acting in a timely manor to make sure the laws of the land reflected present day ideals.

Human nature .......gotta wonder about us.

[yycflyguy]

Before any of you comment, you should go to the ACPA website, run the pension estimator for your 20-25 years of service, and then back date your age 5 years, (to simulate working 5 extra years), and run the pension estimator again. Don't forget to bump up the amount for your best 5 years because you WILL be able to hold something a little more senior by then.

Compare the amounts and you will see that 5 years makes a big difference for the pension you will collect for the rest of your life.

In your scenario you are negating the stagnation at position group or junior formula positions. The demographics of the pilot group is top heavy. 10-15 retirees per month. Now with that top heavy group sticking around for a few more years, under the guise of discrimination, advancement to higher paying positions will be stalled. Now if I want to retire at 60, my "best 5 years" are not what they should have been.

I hope they enjoy their double LGA turns 16 days a month on the mighty EMJ.... oh wait, they wont have to do that because they will be seniority positions 1 & 2. Like Raymond says "It's not about fairness".

[Lost in Saigon]

In your scenario you are negating the stagnation at position group or junior formula positions. The demographics of the pilot group is top heavy. 10-15 retirees per month. Now with that top heavy group sticking around for a few more years, under the guise of discrimination, advancement to higher paying positions will be stalled. Now if I want to retire at 60, my "best 5 years" are not what they should have been.

There will be very little stagnation because ACPA has told us the majority do not want to go past 60. Only a small minority(as reflected in the vote) will go past 60, so what is the problem?

Oh, what's that you say? The vote really doesn't represent how many will want to stay past 60? Then why is ACPA not representing those who DO want to go past 60?

Something doesn't add up. You can't have it both ways.

[yycflyguy]

In your scenario you are negating the stagnation at position group or junior formula positions. The demographics of the pilot group is top heavy. 10-15 retirees per month. Now with that top heavy group sticking around for a few more years, under the guise of discrimination, advancement to higher paying positions will be stalled. Now if I want to retire at 60, my "best 5 years" are not what they should have been.

There will be very little stagnation because ACPA has told us the majority do not want to go past 60. Only a small minority(as reflected in the vote) will go past 60, so what is the problem?

Oh, what's that you say? The vote really doesn't represent how many will want to stay past 60? Then why is ACPA not representing those who DO want to go past 60?

Something doesn't add up. You can't have it both ways.

I would suggest that more will come out of the woodwork after the initial firestorm dies down and decide to stick around for a few more years. Although the complainants list is relatively short I bet more and more will decide to milk the cow a little longer now that these "pioneers" have absorbed the brunt of discontent. We really wont know the percentage until it plays out, but like I said, after some time, more and more will decide its ok to stay at the top because this really wasn't their decision/fight.

[Brick Head]

Lost,

Sorry buddy but you sound like my Doc at my last medical. And I know he had my best interests at heart.


Lean over and relax............it wont hurt as much.


Well at least I didn't get.......look no hands


Not like we are all getting here.


Sorry moderators that was meant in the most respectful of ways.

[Jaques Strappe]

The leaders of ACPA have done a very good job selling this Age 60 stuff to the junior pilots. They all think they are going to be irreparably harmed if even one pilot goes past age 60.

The fact is most of the junior pilots were hired in their 30's, and even early 40's, and will NEVER see a full pension at Air Canada. The junior pilots are the ones who need age 65 the most. They are the ones that can gain the most with their pensions if they work a few extra years.

Before any of you comment, you should go to the ACPA website, run the pension estimator for your 20-25 years of service, and then back date your age 5 years, (to simulate working 5 extra years), and run the pension estimator again. Don't forget to bump up the amount for your best 5 years because you WILL be able to hold something a little more senior by then.

Compare the amounts and you will see that 5 years makes a big difference for the pension you will collect for the rest of your life.

All this talk about pensions and pension calculators. Doesn't really matter because now I am going to complain to the CHRT that I am being forced against my human right to be a part of a defunct dinosaur Defined Benefit pension plan as dictated by a collective agreement and which has hindered me from investing in RRSP's. Once people start opting out because the CHRT will have no choice but to allow that, your working till 65 and beyond to top up your pension will be useless as there will be nobody funding it anymore.

The flood gates have now been officially opened. The fly till ya die camp has effectively killed the Collective Agreement as it apparently, means nothing. Well done!

[bcflyer]

In your scenario you are negating the stagnation at position group or junior formula positions. The demographics of the pilot group is top heavy. 10-15 retirees per month. Now with that top heavy group sticking around for a few more years, under the guise of discrimination, advancement to higher paying positions will be stalled. Now if I want to retire at 60, my "best 5 years" are not what they should have been.

There will be very little stagnation because ACPA has told us the majority do not want to go past 60. Only a small minority(as reflected in the vote) will go past 60, so what is the problem?

Oh, what's that you say? The vote really doesn't represent how many will want to stay past 60? Then why is ACPA not representing those who DO want to go past 60?

Something doesn't add up. You can't have it both ways.

Wow you really don't get it do you.. Most don't want to go past 60 but alot will have to go beyond 60 to get the same pension they would have had if the greedy buggers at the top had retired like those in front of them. Remember your pension is based on your best 5 yrs. If everyone left as planned, everyone would move up the list like they thought they would and get the pension they were planning on. Now that is all screwed up. If the top guys stay, how does someone maximize their last 5 yrs.. They can't unless they wait for the greedy buggers at the top to leave. Thus they are forced to stay longer than they really want to. All the 60 plus guys will hold hands together and proclaim that they were right when really nobody had much of a choice.....

[iwannasoar]

Don't forget though it's against my human rights not to have summer vacation and weekends off. Time to hit the CHRT and demand that we have rotating seniority. That way I can be at home for Christmas while "V" and "K" are doing walkarounds in CYYT under the watchful eye of Herr Young Captain form the warmth of the bridge.

[accumulous]

"Don't forget though it's against my human rights not to have summer vacation and weekends off. Time to hit the CHRT and demand that we have rotating seniority. That way I can be at home for Christmas while "V" and "K" are doing walkarounds in CYYT under the watchful eye of Herr Young Captain form the warmth of the bridge."

Couple of little items that would seem to be applicable in answer to that:

A.

Canadian Human Rights Act
H-6:

An Act to extend the laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination
...

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.

and B.

H. Offence Provisions
Under sections 59 and 60 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is an offence for anyone to threaten, intimidate or discriminate against an individual because that person has made a complaint of discrimination or given evidence or assisted in any way in respect of a complaint or other proceeding under the Act. Section 60 specifically provides that anyone who fails to comply with the terms of an approved settlement under the Act, who obstructs a tribunal in carrying out its duties, or contravenes certain statutory prohibitions, such as section 59, is guilty of an offence and subject to a fine. In the case of an employer, employer association or employee organization, this fine is not to exceed $50,000; in any other case, the fine is not to exceed $5,000.

A prosecution for an offence under the Act is by way of summary proceedings, which may be initiated either by the Complainant or by the Commission. Once the matter is turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for investigation, however, it is for the Attorney General of Canada to determine whether or not the case should be prosecuted, and if so, to carry it through the Criminal Court system.

and C.

Several years ago Playboy Magazine had a definition for the medical condition Hysterical Pregnancy which in fact has all the physical/mental symptoms of a real pregnancy but in actual fact is a blank - it was the act of 'laboring under a misconception', which would seem somewhat applicable to the group that is professing to have the reins on the rules of reinstatement for V-K. Firstly, nobody can pull that off in full outright view of existing legislation. And with regard to the hysterical pregnancy part, the members of the 'association' who are now 'bellied' up to the bar with the terms of reinstatement in their mitts forgot one teensy weensy additional detail and that is that they are laboring under the misconception that they are the employer.

[getalifealready]

I hope they sell tickets for the upcoming EMB training

[Max111]

You really believe that will happen ???

[Max111]

Since you're part of the brain trust of the MEC.........Why are they paying him the 777 rate.......Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....Don't let that worry you.

[Brick Head]

Since you're part of the brain trust of the MEC.........Why are they paying him the 777 rate.......Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....Don't let that worry you.

Max111,

May I ask you the same question? How would you do it differently? How would you implement post 60 while still preserving the present benefit?

May I ask your opinion on how we achieve that lofty goal, put before us by the Tribunal, in the V&K ruling?

If it were you for instance. What would you do to find the right balance for benefit preservation?

Or is it your opinion that this lofty goal, benefit preservation while ending mandatory retirement, is not achievable? That the whole concept of being able to achieve this without another form of discrimination is fallacy?

If you refuse to chime in on the issue? If you refuse to entertain any idea of balance even though that was the direction given by the CHRT? Why do you complain when solutions get decided for you?



[45] 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?


[49] Given that the benefits associated with mandatory retirement can be achieved without
mandatory retirement, it is difficult to see how permitting it to be negotiated in the workplace is
important enough to warrant the violation of equality rights that was identified by the Federal
Court in the present case.

[Max111]

I would love to answer your questions....and i have for these past five years..and its makes no difference....There are solutions out there that would benefit all...they have been presented ad infinitum. It's a waste of time.

[Brick Head]

I would love to answer your questions....and i have for these past five years..and its makes no difference....There are solutions out there that would benefit all...they have been presented ad infinitum. It's a waste of time.

Funny,

I've never heard a solution presented from your side that would preserve the benefit system, and still allow people to work past 60. Serious dialogue on the issue, when attempted, has almost exclusively been met with stone cold silence. Or suck it up, life's not fair comments. 99.99999999% really don't care what age individuals choose to work to. The concern is what appears to be an all out attack on the benefit system.

You have a solution that would have prevented this bun fight to begin with?

I'm all ears.

[accumulous]

Anybody have the straight goods on why the ACPA Forum was shut down and what's happening with that now??

[Sage]

Ask a certain someone that posted on this topic and others like it. You might know him. It was his fault. He's very popular. Yet another gift.

[Disco Stu]

Raymond,

I can't wait until the next election so I can come to all your town hall meetings in Winnipeg, step up to the mike, and tell the audience that in my opinion you are man of NO integrity, interested only in pursuing your own financial gain and feeding your oversized ego.



//edited by Sulako take a valium, Stu. Libel is not cool, and next time is a strike. Remember, it's only your opinion.

[Sage]

Just a word to everyone, a certain somebody is looking for someone to sue. If you get a PM, tell him to bother somebody else. He's doing his best to bait us. ACPA forum shutdown to protect us from this

Right on Stu!

[Mechanic787]

The downward slide continues. You guys fly airplanes? Please post your flight schedule, so that I can avoid subjecting myself to other examples of your professionalism.

The word is, you have already succeeded in getting one other Forum shut down. Are you trying to get this one shut down as well?

[accumulous]

"The downward slide continues. You guys fly airplanes? Please post your flight schedule, so that I can avoid subjecting myself to other examples of your professionalism."

Absolutely the best post on this Forum thus far. No other airline on the planet is like this. Canvas WestJet, Jazz, every other airline in Canada, every single airline in the United States. None of them engage in open discrimination.

[Brick Head]

Mechanic787,

This is what happens when you put too many type A personalities in one room I just ignore it.

accumulous,

The Tribunal in the V&K ruling stated that the alternatives to mandatory retirement, now in place in other jurisdictions, do not infringe on a constitutionally protected right. I posted the exact wording on an adjacent thread. IOW the Tribunal, at least last summer, did not view these alternatives to mandatory retirement as another form of age based discrimination, as so many vehemently claim. ACPA is presently progressing toward emulation of the the very examples the Tribunal cited.

In fact just about everything ACPA has done thus far is regurgitation of the V&K ruling. Meaning nothing ACPA has done this far should surprise anyone.

[accumulous]

"...Meaning nothing ACPA has done this far should surprise anyone."

That part is correct. It doesn't surprise anybody. And nobody will be surprised when the shoe drops.