Pilots Support Retirement

[Bede]

But suffice it to say I have been in favor of voluntary retirement since the mid 80's when I watched countless 747 skippers being forced to leave along with the incalculable loss of their years of experience.

Well then at least you have my respect. I still think your position is wrong though.

One of the interesting things is whether ACPA will be willing to finance the legal costs of the judicial review should it reach an appellate court. I thought the Mactavish decision in Vilven was somewhat inconsistent with similar leading decisions such as Dickasen. Furthermore, it was somewhat irrelevant to the subsequent CRHT decision, because the CRHT decision failed to consider collective bargaining rights and the fact that it was not AC who forced Vilven to retire, it was the collective agreement. I look forward to the Federal JR decision.

[rudder]

Bede: What is the pilot retirement policy at your airline? Do you support it? And if not, what are you going to do to change it?

[Bede]

Bede: What is the pilot retirement policy at your airline? Do you support it? And if not, what are you going to do to change it?

I was waiting for someone to call me on it. I've been reading this debate for quite a while and didn't comment until just recently, because in all honesty, it's none of my business and doesn't affect me, so now that you called me on it, this is probably my last post on the subject.

I work for WJA (just moved over from Jazz), where we can work until we die if we want. The difference is, that's the way it is now and while I believe in age 60, I don't feel too strongly about it. The difference between WJA (and Jazz) and AC is that I'm not benefiting from the policy for my whole career, advancing quickly, and when I no longer personally benefit from a clause in my CA, I then start a legal challenge, which regardless of it's merits, will screw the majority of those below me. Those are my ethical objections to this challenge.

My legal objections involving the weighing of collective bargaining rights vs individual rights. There are advantages and disadvantages to belonging to a trade union. One of the disadvantages is that you give up some individual rights and autonomy in exchange for being able to bargain collectively. I'm not much of a unionist, but the theory advanced by organized labour is that individual workers do better when allowed to bargain collectively and this loss of autonomy is therefore justified for the greater good. The downside is that as a member of a trade union, I cannot try to get a different deal than my co workers. If the majority decides they want a pension at 60, and in return everyone must retire at 60, that's the way it is.

Though I don't always agree with the past jurisprudence on this issue, courts have routinely favored collective bargaining rights over individual rights. But the case law is what it is. Mactavish failed to differentiate between an individual worker being fired because they have reached the normal retirement age (unconstitutional) and a collective agreement where labour agrees to retire at a certain age (balancing different rights). Perhaps ACPA counsel didn't advance this critical difference in their factum. The CRHT applied the judgement incorrectly because they failed to consider the jurisprudence on balancing collective v individual rights in unionized workplaces. If the Federal court uses the correctness standard (see Dunsmuir v N.B) in the JR, I believe the JR will be allowed and the CRHT ruling reversed.

Personally I like the old CX model; work until your (I thing it was) 55, then they give a ton of cash and tell you to screw off. I love flying, but given the choice of flying a jet and flying a super cub on floats, finishing my day by noon and hanging out the rest of the time, I'll take the floats.

PS. Rudder, I think I know you from Jazz. Congrats on the new contract. All the best. Cheers, FH

[Sumimasen]

Both Air Canada & ACPA have publicly agreed to let them return. <<< re read this sentence again.....and again if required.
Once V&K come back, logic dictates that all those who still (legally) wish to return or stay will follow suit.

Jay Dee,

The agreement to return V and K to the line was made (as I'm sure you're aware) "without prejudice" - which of course means that ACPA and AC ARE NOT agreeing to the award simply complying with the order since the appeal has yet to be heard. It does nothing to cement their future in returning to the line.
S

[Max111]

deleted

[accumulous]

The agreement to return V and K to the line was made (as I'm sure you're aware) "without prejudice" - which of course means that ACPA and AC ARE NOT agreeing to the award simply complying with the order since the appeal has yet to be heard. It does nothing to cement their future in returning to the line.

Are you sure? First of all the Order has not been issued yet, so they weren't complying with the judged terms of reinstatement. If the terms of reinstatement had been set out in the Order by the Tribunal then AC and ACPA would be complying with that. Instead they drafted their own agreement, absent the Order. The MOA violates Section 10 of the Act.

You can't write 'without prejudice' on a baseball bat and use it without facing severe penalties.

Without Prejudice is a statement set onto a written document such as a letter, which qualifies the signatory as exempt from the 'content' to the extent that it may be interpreted as containing admissions or other interpretations which could later be used against him or her; or as otherwise affecting any legal rights of the principal of, or the person signing.

It's not the content - it's the act of making the agreement, contrary to Section 10 of the Human Rights Act. It also gave rise to the DFR, did it not?? What are the penalties for all of that?

[SaskStyle]

For whatever my anonymous opinion is worth, I'm going to offer it...

This whole thing stinks, in my opinion.

I stand to be corrected, but "human rights" and all the legislation surrounding them were brought into form to protect the NEEDS of citizens...the need to eat, clothe, and house yourself and your family in this country was determined to be a protected RIGHT...and one way to provide those NEEDS in this society is through labour, and as such one cannot be prejudiced against based upon, as it pertains to this discussion, age.

Therefore...I suggest those that are arguing to prolong their working life at Air Canada are bastardizing the very wording of those hard-fought for, legislated rights.

We all know the wages that are made when you've reached retirement age at Air Canada. We all know the pension one collects after your retirement. That's all public knowledge. Your pension take home dollars are significantly higher than the average salary in Canada under which the majority of people are able to provide for their personal needs quite comfortably. Therefore, if your needs are already provided...it's not a rights issue...it's a want issue.

Those fighting for their "age rights" in this situation are doing nothing more than taking the specific wording built into an honored system and spitting in the spirit of it, in my opinion.

That's shameful. The greed is transparent.
You've done a good job, congratulations. Collect your pensions and carry on with your life.

[accumulous]

Those fighting for their "age rights" in this situation are doing nothing more than taking the specific wording built into an honored system and spitting in the spirit of it, in my opinion.

Nice try but you got the entire Act wrong and you really should read it. Better still you should take that argument, call the Human Rights Commission and read it to them. They are readily available to answer your questions. Tell them about the spitting and the greed and the rest of those comments and any one of them will be more than happy to enlighten you about not only the spirit and intent of human rights but to help you through to an understanding of what it all means. Seriously, call them.

[SaskStyle]

Nice try but you got the entire Act wrong and you really should read it. Better still you should take that argument, call the Human Rights Commission and read it to them. They are readily available to answer your questions. Tell them about the spitting and the greed and the rest of those comments and any one of them will be more than happy to enlighten you about not only the spirit and intent of human rights but to help you through to an understanding of what it all means. Seriously, call them.

Employment
7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,
(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or
(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination. [1976-77, c.33, s.7.]

That's from the human rights act...and is an example of "specific wording" that can be broadly applied to a multitude of individual situations. I ask you accumulous, do you seriously believe that when these words were written and made an official act that this specific retirement issue was visualized as a cause? That these individuals who have had a full career, are retiring with full pensions with full dollar capability to provide a comfortable existance for them and theirs as long as they want...you believe that this those writing that act thought that |these are the citizens we are protecting?"

This is from CHRC website.

Overview
Resolving Disputes
Discrimination and Harassment
Age

Individuals at both ends of the age spectrum are potential victims of discrimination as a result of negative stereotyping about the young and the old. Making generalized assumptions about the ability of individuals because of their age runs counter to human rights principles. It is also poor business sense to eliminate experienced and otherwise qualified candidates from consideration simply because they have reached a certain age, or to refuse to consider someone because they are below a certain age.

This ground can refer to an individual's actual age, his or her membership in a specific age-group, (e.g., 45 to 50, or over 60), or to a generalized characterization of his or her age (e.g., too old, or too young).

I don't read anything in this overview that says that individuals who are forced to retire but (this is a big but) have the ability to provide a comfortable existance are being discriminated. That's the spirit I was talking about. I'm assuming that the individuals that this paragraph intends to address are those that need to work to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head. I'm assuming that this CHRC commission wasn't created to protect the have's in society.

I'll call the commission, I look forward to being enlightened.

In the meantime, I'm asking you to convince me otherwise. Convince me that your desire to work is a "protected right" the same as someone who needs to work.

[SaskStyle]

I stand to be corrected, but "human rights" and all the legislation surrounding them were brought into form to protect the NEEDS of citizens...the need to eat, clothe, and house yourself and your family in this country was determined to be a protected RIGHT...and one way to provide those NEEDS in this society is through labour, and as such one cannot be prejudiced against based upon, as it pertains to this discussion, age.

Nice try but you got the entire Act wrong and you really should read it.

From Canadian Human Rights Act titled "Purpose of Act"

The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.


I disagree with you that I got the entire Act wrong.

[SaskStyle]

Am I losing my mind or did two posts just disappear before I had a chance to reply?

That's not really fair because the one post that disappeared quite clearly proved my point that this whole case is based on pure wants...not needs...and is still, in my opinion...far from a human rights issue.

And I like winning discussions and when I can't prove I won...it's not fair.

MY rights were just violated.

[Sumimasen]

Am I losing my mind or did two posts just disappear before I had a chance to reply?

That's not really fair because the one post that disappeared quite clearly proved my point that this whole case is based on pure wants...not needs...and is still, in my opinion...far from a human rights issue.

And I like winning discussions and when I can't prove I won...it's not fair.

MY rights were just violated.

SaskStyle,
First you are not losing your mind 2 post were erased due to accumulous resorting to name-calling, which seems to be his/her only defense. The fact that I quoted his post meant that his words were duplicated in my post. I am sure the mods did it for that reason. Accumulous is on thin ice IMHO.
As for your original post and follow-ups, I agree with your take.
s

[accumulous]

My apologies to the moderators and the participants - the analogies got colorful to the point of not being fair - won't happen again. Thanks for that. The general point was that in terms of those seeking the realization of their human rights, the issue is not greed, and please note that the term has been applied against these people since day 1 by others, so it's nothing new, but there is nothing in the Act that puts a monetary value on rights is there? Take the issue of racial discrimination as an example. Can you discriminate against a colored person because their income has crossed a threshold?? If so, could somebody please point that paragraph out in the Act??

[Sumimasen]

I'll accept that apology accumulous. This debate can only happen if we all try to behave and play nice!
s

[sepia]

accumulous: Lets back up for a second here, step back from the humans right tribunal, and your links to a thousand pages of the driest reading known to man. Do you honestly not suspect that not a single of the 100 or so members of fly past 60 are motivated by greed? I'm not asking whether you think it's their right or anything like that. I just want to know whether or not you suspect that a possible motivation of the sudden interest in their human rights is based on greed.

[accumulous]

Do you honestly not suspect that not a single of the 100 or so members of fly past 60 are motivated by greed?

No I don't think so at all. It's not a sinister scenario as it's often painted. And the number is a lot bigger than that - it's about 150 now, and about 450 indicated the preference in ACPA's first survey out of only a small percentage of total pilots responding. So there's no telling how big that number actually is - is it a thousand??

Guys want the right to fly and the right to work without being told they can't do it by a group that wants them out of the way on a specific birthday, just like all the other pilots in Canada with the exception of AC.

Just the same as if you were colored or had a different religion or nationality or whatever. It's extremely tough being in any minority position. All the other pilots in Canada embraced the idea and have been getting on with it for a very long time now, on equal terms.

The notion that the job happens to pay doesn't equate to greed. Greed is a pretty strong word denoting a lot of really nasty characteristics and to accuse people of greed is a real stretch. I think that notion was put forward in some form in the V-K trial and it didn't get anywhere because it's just not on the HRC radar. But can discrimination be motivated by greed?? You be the judge. To get a notion of how strong the word is, ask all the pilots currently employed how many are motivated by greed. The way of the world is that you work for a living and you generally get paid for it. I think the notion of greed is normally something that is thrust upon people by others, like people on this forum calling others greedy.

Most guys really do want the freedom to work and to not be discriminated against and it's as simple as that, not complicated at all. It's a genuine desire to be treated equally, same as you. There's nothing really sudden about it either. For example, in ACPA's first survey of preference about 450 or so pilots indicated a preference to continue past 60. Something like half the pilots responded. How many of those guys are new hires at 37 years of age who have looked ahead and seen the dim prospects of a low pension. The other problem is the HRC. You can be 37 today and file a complaint with the HRC but it will get put on the shelf until you turn 60. It doesn't matter what you want today. You have no consideration under the law until the act of discrimination takes place. You can complain to your union though, right? Sure you can but do you think that will get you anywhere? Of course not, if you're in the bottom 49 percent. The proof is in the present case. The only obvious recourse is the law, unfortunately, a very costly way to go forward for everybody.

Greed is somebody else's judgement call and guys who want equal rights just keep getting bombarded with that and fly through a lot of that kind of flak. It's a real long torturing bumpy ride. Just ask V-K. In my opinion if V-K were motivated by greed, they'd be long gone by now. The amount of stress they've been put through in the last 5 years would flatten most guys into a pancake. I would submit that their strength of conviction and character and genuine desire for equality under the terms of this country is driving them on through the one of the biggest hail storms anybody's ever been put through in their entire life.

[sepia]

Do you honestly not suspect that not a single of the 100 or so members of fly past 60 are motivated by greed?

No I don't think so at all.

I think we're so far away in how we see this issue that back and forth on a forum isn't going to change our views. For what it's worth, there's more than one guy on the list that only signed up because they're hoping for some kind of payout. How can I be sure? Sat and listened to guys scheme about signing up hoping for a big payout after they retired at their last medical. Not once did they talk about human rights, or their desire to keep working. I don't believe that everyone on the list is like minded, but I also don't believe that those were the only 2 people with that kind of thinking.

[accumulous]

Sat and listened to guys scheme about signing up hoping for a big payout after they retired at their last medical. Not once did they talk about human rights

That's not great is it? Well they would have discovered by now that the complaint process is all about reinstatement. The complaint of discrimination is wrongful dismissal. The petitions to AC prior to mandatory retirement were regarding continuation of employment, and when that was denied, it becomes a case of reinstatement. In a favorable decision to the complaint you are offered reinstatement because the entire issue is the right to work past 60. That's the way it is presented to you. If you don't want to be reinstated then I have no idea what the next step to that is. If you read through decisions on the Tribunal website, the same decision is granted over and over again, and that is reinstatement. The Tribunal makes all the decisions with regard to concurrent damages, lost pay, lost pension contributions and the other things that come with reinstatement. That's entirely the decision of the Tribunal. So you make a good point about what happens if you are looking for a payout? No idea, is that a civil suit maybe? That would be an entirely different case from this one. This case is about to the right to work past 60. The complaint is very clear in the way it is presented. It's an employment issue. Denying people employment based upon their age, one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

That case that just concluded 10 days ago is on the Tribunal website - pretty much the same process, but one of the other prohibited grounds.

http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vh ... =0#1004985

[Takeoff OK]

First of all, I must say that there is some very eloquent, knowledgeable and enlightened conversation going on here, which is refreshing when you compare it to most US-based aviation boards. So kudos to everyone on both sides. However...

I'm curious: Who is the enemy here? Air Canada or ACPA? The reason I ask is that it seems to me that if management was arbitrarily forcing you to retire at 60, then there is a justifiable argument at hand, and the CHRA has a dog in this fight. If, on the other hand, the enemy is simply the contract you agreed to sign, then I don't see a human rights violation, and the CHRA should not play a role. How can you cry foul when you personally helped enforce the same policy you're fighting by agreeing to it in earlier times?

Somebody brought up the issue of greed. That feels 100% spot on here.

Sorry; just an outsider's opinion.

[SaskStyle]

Accumulous,

Like someone said earlier, we are so far apart on this issue, it is almost pointless to spend the energy composing replies.

I asked you earlier to convince me that this is truly a human rights issue.

I've read your replies, (including the one which was removed by the mods.)

I will state my opinion again. The human rights act was brought into place to protect those being discriminated against. With respect to workplace discrimination, at it's basic level, I believe that human rights were extended to protect individual workers who risk losing the ability to provide for them and their family. Whether that be because of the colour of ones skin or because one has reached a union negotiated retirement age. The whole point that is lost in all of this debate is WHY were rights created in the first place, and what was the spirit in which they were created? I believe that human rights were brought into place to protect an individual from losing the ability to provide essential needs for his family.

Your attempts to garner support and sympathy for your case have only strengthened my resolve that this is greed.
Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines "greed": A selfish and excessive desire for more of something than is needed.

Are you telling me that a pilot at Air Canada who has reached retirement doesn't have all they need to survive in Canada? Especially when one receives a pension from Air Canada after retirement, which was outlined to you as part of the compensation package one is presented upon accepting the job when hired.

Your arguments against this concept include:
1) "there is nothing in the act that puts a monetary value on rights is there?"
I see that statement as an example of taking the system and twisting the spirit of it to fit ones desires.

2) "How many of those guys are new hires at 37 years of age who have looked ahead and seen the dim prospects of a low pension."
Again, that statement is an example of a want...not a need. A "low pension" is relative by definition. You only need what you have but human nature is to want what others have that. Life isn't fair however. So I put forth the question to you, will that low pension leave that individual on the street? If so, then you have a valid point, if not, I still have no sympathy. I can understand your desires, but to turn it into a human rights issue is still a stretch.

3) "Most guys really do want the freedom to work and to not be discriminated against and it's as simple as that, not complicated at all. It's a genuine desire to be treated equally, same as you."
Really? You stated that you can work anywhere you want in Canada. So...what's stopping you? Take your experience and work. Oh wait...you want to work at Air Canada. So because you want to you have a right to because you were employed by them. I'm lost.

Look. I can read the act as well as the next person, and you are 100% correct in stating that by the letter of the law there is a valid case. One cannot discriminate based on age. And forced retirement is an example of discrimination. And what I think makes zero difference because as you point out, what matters is what is written.

But let's leave the rules and the words and think about it. You really feel that your human rights are violated? You really believe that after being employed as a professional pilot by a major airline, then retiring (at a union negotiated age) and collecting a pension (to pay your bills) with full benefits (health and travel) that your rights as a human being are violated?

And finally...let's not be coy...every wrongful dismissal case and successful reinstatement includes lost benefit compensation.

[accumulous]

Like someone said earlier, we are so far apart on this issue, it is almost pointless to spend the energy composing replies.

You're absolutely right - there's not much point doing it on this forum. It's a big topic. You have a lot of questions and the best way to have them all answered is to just simply go to the source. There are a ton of people there who will be more than happy to answer your questions.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/contact/default-en.asp

[JayDee]

I will state my opinion again. The human rights act was brought into place to protect those being discriminated against.
With respect to workplace discrimination, at it's basic level, I believe that human rights were extended to protect individual workers who risk losing the ability to provide for them and their family. Whether that be because of the colour of ones skin or because one has reached a union negotiated retirement age. The whole point that is lost in all of this debate is WHY were rights created in the first place, and what was the spirit in which they were created? I believe that human rights were brought into place to protect an individual from losing the ability to provide essential needs for his family.

Your attempts to garner support and sympathy for your case have only strengthened my resolve that this is greed.
Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines "greed": A selfish and excessive desire for more of something than is needed.

Are you telling me that a pilot at Air Canada who has reached retirement doesn't have all they need to survive in Canada? Especially when one receives a pension from Air Canada after retirement, which was outlined to you as part of the compensation package one is presented upon accepting the job when hired.

Your arguments against this concept include:

1) "there is nothing in the act that puts a monetary value on rights is there?"
I see that statement as an example of taking the system and twisting the spirit of it to fit ones desires.

2) "How many of those guys are new hires at 37 years of age who have looked ahead and seen the dim prospects of a low pension."
Again, that statement is an example of a want...not a need. A "low pension" is relative by definition. You only need what you have but human nature is to want what others have that. Life isn't fair however. So I put forth the question to you, will that low pension leave that individual on the street? If so, then you have a valid point, if not, I still have no sympathy. I can understand your desires, but to turn it into a human rights issue is still a stretch.

3) "Most guys really do want the freedom to work and to not be discriminated against and it's as simple as that, not complicated at all. It's a genuine desire to be treated equally, same as you."
Really? You stated that you can work anywhere you want in Canada. So...what's stopping you? Take your experience and work. Oh wait...you want to work at Air Canada. So because you want to you have a right to because you were employed by them. I'm lost.

Look. I can read the act as well as the next person, and you are 100% correct in stating that by the letter of the law there is a valid case. One cannot discriminate based on age. And forced retirement is an example of discrimination. And what I think makes zero difference because as you point out, what matters is what is written.

Seems to me you have answered all your questions yourself. I would take accumulous' advice and look up the LAW regarding this matter. Needs, wants, fair, junior, senior, poor, rich etc mean dick all in this agument. The law of the land has squarely come out in favor of eliminating mandatory, discriminatory, outdated retirement provisions.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/contact/default-en.asp

[SaskStyle]

edited....

i think that's exactly the point i'm making...

the law of the land was written for a reason,
i'm asking is this specific case a valid reason?

are rights really violated?

[beast]

Thanks for the link, Jaydee: Here's an excerpt:

Discrimination and Harassment:

Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is against the law for any employer or provider of a service that falls within federal jurisdiction to discriminate on the basis of:

You are not being discriminated against by your employer, as the law in fact forbids - your employer is enforcing a contract which was negotiated by an association comprised of your peers, and validated when you (and everyone else) agreed to work under the contract

An actual example of age discrimination would be, for instance, if an office had an employee who was terminated because he was seen as being outdated or inconsistent with the company's "youthful" image

If everyone who worked in the office agreed to leave at age 60, would that be age discrimination? Of course not - such a concept is the exact opposite of discrimination! everyone agreeing to be bound equally by a decision of the collective - discrimination is when some are treated differently than others

But what the hell, I know you don't actually care - I can't believe the association hasn't just tried to buy you fools out

[JayDee]

Discrimination and Harassment:

Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is against the law for any employer or provider of a service that falls within federal jurisdiction to discriminate on the basis of:

Glad you enjoyed the link. Here it is again.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/grounds-en.asp

Suggest you delve deeper this time as here's the rest of the sentence you conveniently left out:

Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is against the law for any employer or provider of a service that falls within federal jurisdiction to discriminate on the basis of:

Race
National or ethnic origin
Colour
Religion
Age
Sex (including pregnancy and childbearing)
Sexual Orientation
Marital status
Family status
Physical or mental disability (including dependence on alcohol or drugs)
Pardoned criminal conviction


and this:

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/age-en.asp

"Age

Individuals at both ends of the age spectrum are potential victims of discrimination as a result of negative stereotyping about the young and the old. Making generalized assumptions about the ability of individuals because of their age runs counter to human rights principles. It is also poor business sense to eliminate experienced and otherwise qualified candidates from consideration simply because they have reached a certain age, or to refuse to consider someone because they are below a certain age.

This ground can refer to an individual's actual age, his or her membership in a specific age-group, (e.g., 45 to 50, or over 60), or to a generalized characterization of his or her age (e.g., too old, or too young).