Pilots Support Retirement

[beast]

yes, jaydee, I left out the list for the sake of brevity, after placing in bold the terms which nullify your entire argument!

I will say it again, you are not being "eliminated" by your employer - you are not facing discrimination from your employer!!!!

AC pilots have agreed to form an agreement that defines their relationship to the company - one of the provisions is that of a retirement age that APPLIES TO EVERYONE EQUALLY

Does that sound like discrimination? it shouldn't, jaydee, because its actually not. It is, in fact, impossible to discriminate against oneself.

But once again, there is no point in me trying to point out the facts here - everyone can see this for what it really is, greed

[accumulous]

AC pilots have agreed to form an agreement that defines their relationship to the company - one of the provisions is that of a retirement age that APPLIES TO EVERYONE EQUALLY

That's entirely correct - it applies to everyone in the country.

Does that sound like discrimination? it shouldn't, jaydee, because its actually not. It is, in fact, impossible to discriminate against oneself.

You have the right to have the option to continue work past 60. That was already determined below. Nothing says you have to and by not doing it you are not discriminating against yourself but by claiming that nobody else has the right to do it you are in fact fighting the rights that you in fact have which is pointless. You have the right to work past 60.

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

But once again, there is no point in me trying to point out the facts here - everyone can see this for what it really is, greed.

There's that greed thing again. Are you right about that? Or would you just like to be right about that. Are you inside the hearts and minds of guys who just want their basic right to work? Or are you just seeing your own reflection in the glare of uncertainty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_callin ... ttle_black

[JayDee]

yes, jaydee, I left out the list for the sake of brevity, after placing in bold the terms which nullify your entire argument!

There's nothing like facts then to get in the way of a good discussion, but here are the terms which nullify yours.


"V. CONCLUSION

[155] The Tribunal has concluded that the respondents have not met their onus under s. 1 of the Charter. Section 15(1)(c) of the CHRA is not a reasonable limit on the complainants' rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter. Therefore, we refuse to apply s. 15(1)(c) to the facts of this case.

[156] The Tribunal has also concluded that the respondents have not established that the mandatory retirement provision in the collective agreement is a BFOR within ss. 15(1)(a) and 15(2) of the CHRA.

[157] For these reasons the Tribunal finds that the complaints of Mr. Vilven and Mr. Kelly have been substantiated. "

VI. REMEDY

[158] The complainants seek a number of remedies including reinstatement; restoration of seniority and service; damages for lost income, as well as lost pension and other benefits. The Commission asks for a cease and desist order and significant revision to the respondents' workplace policies on mandatory retirement.
[159] These requests involve considerable readjustment to the current workplace regime and their disposition will require much more information than has been presented to the Tribunal.

[160] Accordingly, it will be necessary to provide further evidence and submissions taking into account this decision. A timetable for this will be established in consultation with the parties.

The Tribunal remains seized with this matter for the purposes of remedy

[SaskStyle]

Accumulous,

I read the CHRT ruling.

Admittedly, it was, as you put, "enlightening"....and at the same time without sarcasm and all sincerity informative.

It forced me to rethink my view on human rights.

And I am struggling with it.

I do not know whether to be

A) Proud of a country that has reached a point in it's existence where the ultimate wage earners in its society can lay claim to a human rights violation...and in turn see that fact(that being they were violated based upon age) as proof of a progressive society...(which is the only way I can in my head justify the decision).


B) Or be embarrassed (as I started this debate if you read my first post...I never said that word but I dictated the idea) Because as a person I cannot fathom and/or relate the connection between someone who has everything taking their case straight faced to the same court that hears from people who have nothing.

In the end it's as JayDee eloquently put it...it doesn't mean dick.

Congratulations. You've proved the system works.

How does that feel?

[SaskStyle]

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.

VI. REMEDY

[158] The complainants seek a number of remedies including reinstatement; restoration of seniority and service; damages for lost income, as well as lost pension and other benefits

Did you even read what you are telling me to read?

[SaskStyle]

But once again, there is no point in me trying to point out the facts here - everyone can see this for what it really is, greed.

There's that greed thing again. Are you right about that? Or would you just like to be right about that. Are you inside the hearts and minds of guys who just want their basic right to work? Or are you just seeing your own reflection in the glare of uncertainty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_callin ... ttle_black

That's pretty smug.

In the ruling there was much discussion re the fact that under the current system at Air Canada, delayed retirement would have a detrimental effect on the younger pilots. As far as I could understand the lawyerspeak, that reality was balanced against the detrimental effect of forcing older pilots to retire. Since the younger ones would now have the option to stay longer and recoup any hardships as a result of this new reality, then it was decided that the greater ill was forced retirement. In simplistic terms.

So the younger generation that sees their career advancement delayed due to a court ruling is a pot calling a kettle black.

Nice.

[accumulous]

Hi:

With all due respect calling everybody smug and greedy, etc., etc., is not working. Not going to keep going on this topic any more. Just way too heavy going. Best left to the Tribunal. Two rulings about to come out. There should be a lot of explanation in those for debate.

[115B]

The MEC Chair has released a Newsletter stating that the recent ACPA survey shows that "0ver 80% of pilots support retirement at 60". According to the results previously released, far fewer than 80% of the pilots voted.

Interesting concept.

[bcflyer]

God I'm sick of hearing that argument. 80% of the pilots who voted want age 60. Period. It's not just an interesting concept, it's an accepted one. The same concept that Canada uses to decide its government. The last federal election had less than 60% of eligible voters cast their ballots, but everyone accepts the results as a indication of what the nation wants. Are you disputing the results of the federal election based on the fact that not everyone voted?

I would say that if its a good enough system to elect who will run our entire country, it should be good enough to give an indication of what the pilots at A/C are thinking!

[Captn Flex]

Ah!!!The magic of numbers interpretation. We could say in the last 10 years over 1000 pilots retired at AC but only less then 150 complain about forced retirement which mean only 15% dissaprove the present system.

[115B]

The point about the MEC Newsletter is that parts of the ACPA leadership have bought their own line to the point that they don't understand their own numbers. It could be argued that 42% of the membership disagrees with the policy; for certain, 370 or so active pilots voted against it. In fact, it does not matter what the membership thinks, age based retirement is illegal.

There are always those who are willing to tell others how to live their life, whether it be religious leaders, union leaders, or politicians. In Canada, and most of the developed world, it is no-ones business how one lives one's life as long as one obeys the law.

It is tiresome to listen to someone pontificate that someone they do not know should want to retire, (or continue working) or otherwise govern their life according to the pontificators ideas. You have the right to retire when you want to; you do not have the right to tell anyone else they have to retire for any reason that is not performance related.

We get to decide those things for our own life, but not for the lives of others. Neither a Union, or any other organisation can enforce an "agreement" a "contract", or anything else which is not legal. We will all know soon enough whether the "agreement" everyone keeps referring to is legal.

[fish4life]

what happens when they turn 65? will they say then its illegal again to force them to retire?

[yycflyguy]

Yes

[Mechanic787]

May I encourage you to, as much as possible, look outside of your fish bowl, to get a better perspective on this dispute. I would expect that one of the reasons that the Tribunal is taking so long in rendering its decisions is that it must look at the fundamental legal issues involved here from a much broader perspective than that of the pilots who have presented their cases to the Tribunal.

Not only are there many other airline workers coming along in the Tribunal queue, but there is also a whole series of employees outside of the airline industry itself, including truckers, longshoremen and financial industry personnel, including those at the highest levels of management who are challenging the existing law. Even the major television networks still employ individuals on contracts that specify retirement at a specific age.

As I understand it, the Canadian Human Rights Act was not written with Air Canada pilots in mind. So too, then, issues such as specific pay systems and specific seniority and benefit systems are largely irrelevant to the questions that the Tribunal must decide. The corollary of this assertion is that regardless of the specific impact on the individual organizations involved in these cases, the determinations will be made from a more systemic perspective; therefore individual organizations, especially individual employers and their unions will have to find means within their own processes to adapt to the consequences of the changing law, regardless of the apparent imbalance that the decisions may create within specific organizations and regardless of the motivation of the specific protagonists and/or their associates.

Focusing on these imbalances or on the assumed motivation of any of the players, therefore, while compelling, does little more than distract one from the more pressing social/legal issue question of how and when mandatory retirement provisions will be diminished and eliminated entirely—in short, how and when mandatory retirement will be mandatorily retired in the federal sector.

[Clyde River]

The MEC Chair has released a Newsletter stating that the recent ACPA survey shows that "0ver 80% of pilots support retirement at 60". According to the results previously released, far fewer than 80% of the pilots voted.

Interesting concept.

Assuming the sample was taken randomly, and constructed properly, the poll should be pretty accurate of the entire group, just any survey would of a poplutation, whether a business or of the nation for example.

Polls are used all the time, so why are you so amped to attempt to discredit this one. The result basically backed up the vote that was taken a few years prior by ACPA.

Even in an open vote, whether for the leadership of the nation or of a union, it is unlikely that 100% of the eligible voters will make the effort. The results of a national election are decided by less than 50% of the nation's voters. We live with that, and the polls prior to the elections are generally pretty much representative of the final result.

[bcflyer]

Just to clarify, the numbers posted by the MEC came from the WAWCON survey taken about 2 months ago. The purpose of the survey was to determine where the priorities should be come next years negotiations. The Age 60 question was just one of many included on the survey.

[Disco Stu]

what happens when they turn 65? will they say then its illegal again to force them to retire?

They wouldn't be forced to retire at 65, merely transferred to the right seat or back seat where they would remain until the either died or medicaled out.

[sepia]

Work until death, doesn't that have a catchy ring to it?

[accumulous]

Work until death, doesn't that have a catchy ring to it?

Makes an interesting topic - found a neat reference on the net - the total population of the planet is just under 7 billion - every single one of them will be deceased in just a little under 11 short decades.

[Mechanic787]

Work until death, doesn't that have a catchy ring to it?

Unless I am missing something here, you are missing the point. This issue here is not about working until death. It is about working at Air Canada until one chooses, of one's own volition, to stop working at Air Canada, at an age of one's own choosing, free from discrimination on the basis of age.

Those who oppose the change in the mandatory retirement provisions of the collective agreement, as I read the posts, have no opposition whatsoever to anyone working as long as they want, so long as they don't work for Air Canada as long as they want, impeding the potential career progression of others.

These are not fine technical points of argument. They are substantive, and they factor into the conflict. So let's keep the issues clear. The issue is not about working until death. The issue is solely one of an employer and a union being able to legally dictate, via contract, that those who choose to keep working beyond an arbitrary age not of their own choosing must seek alternative employment to do so.

[UC-64A]

And I quote,"The issue is solely one of an employer and a union being able to legally dictate, via contract, that those who choose to keep working beyond an arbitrary age not of their own choosing must seek alternative employment to do so."

So let me get this straight that you imply the company and union are dictating the contract ??!!! Nope, the very individuals in question here for soooooo many moons have by OWN decision voted on the very contract in debate ! It is the collective group as one that have made the guide lines pertaining to their retirement as they agreed upon for how many contracts. They also had full knowledge of the terms/conditions of the workplace when they signed up in their 20s, they had the power !!
The very fact that these individuals had the knowledge and based their decisions and ELECTED to continue employment for greater then 32yrs of service shows a willingness to accept the terms and conditions of the collective agreement. Plenty of time to plan their retirement according to the very contract they voted on !

And to all a Good night !!

[Mechanic787]

So let me get this straight that you imply the company and union are dictating the contract ??!!! Nope, the very individuals in question here for soooooo many moons have by OWN decision voted on the very contract in debate ! etc. etc. etc.

It is such a shame that so many of you who have huge judgmental responsibility in your professional work first, can't seem to distinguish between a legal argument and a moral argument, and second, can't seem to incorporate into your thinking processes factual information that has been spelled out so often in this and other threads here and elsewhere completely negating your assertions.

It doesn't really matter to me whether you ever do move beyond these two constraints, because all that I am interested in is the ultimate tribunal and court decisions that are about to change the landscape of the work environment in the federal sector.

But let me ask you this. Do you honestly believe that the CHRT or the Federal Court will take into consideration the content of the Air Canada - ACPA collective agreement and/or the Air Canada pension plans in the context of the separate and only questions before them in these disputes? How can they, when the questions were never raised before them in the proceedings?

To you the question may be contractual, but to the tribunal and the court the sole question is whether the mandatory retirement exemption to the general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age under the statute is applicable or is not applicable, regardless of the context of your own contractual circumstances. As I understand the law, collective agreements, regardless of the actual or implied terms contained within them and regardless of the agreement or non-agreement of individuals within the bargaining unit to submit to the terms and conditions of those agreements, cannot violate the human rights legislation because human rights legislation has supervening legal authority over those agreements. End of debate.

Unless and until you get your mind around the legal issue here, as opposed to the moral issue, you do yourself a disservice. In addition, you are setting yourself up for a significant disappointment, once the decisions are ultimately released.

[SaskStyle]

[quote="Mechanic787"]

It is such a shame that so many of you who have huge judgmental responsibility in your professional work first, can't seem to distinguish between a legal argument and a moral argument, and second, can't seem to incorporate into your thinking processes factual information that has been spelled out so often in this and other threads here and elsewhere completely negating your assertions.
quote]

And that's where we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

I don't think it is shameful at all to be mindful of moral implications in legal arguments.

After all, were laws not created to uphold the morals of a society?

You see it shameful that one chooses not to seperate the two.

I see it shameful that one chooses to use one (the legal system) to further personal gains with no consideration of moral implications.

[WF9F]

I don't like it but the landscape will change at AC for the self serving few who want to go over 60, IMO. Our track record with the legal system is far from stellar but for the over 60 crowd to think that all will continue in their current positions with the present day benefits in our CA is indicative of their mindset, misguided.We have to change the CA to make it not beneficial to stay . No GDIP( already in the CA that no one over 60 gets GDIP) and back to the EMJ. Enjoy it and i don't believe that falls under the CHRT guidelines.

" But Sir, I want to keep working and fly the biggest, enjoy the exotic layovers , get paid the most, enjoy the best schedules and vacation. If i lose this my rights have been violated"

" Sit down"

[JayDee]

And I quote,"The issue is solely one of an employer and a union being able to legally dictate, via contract, that those who choose to keep working beyond an arbitrary age not of their own choosing must seek alternative employment to do so."

So let me get this straight that you imply the company and union are dictating the contract ??!!! Nope, the very individuals in question here for soooooo many moons have by OWN decision voted on the very contract in debate ! It is the collective group as one that have made the guide lines pertaining to their retirement as they agreed upon

Please show me in the contract you continually espouse about where its dictates anything about a mandatory retirement age ?

Uhh....you can't...because it isn't there !!

So enough with this continual contract bovine excrement about how and or what was voted on !! It is totally irrelevant to this discussion

The issue is about FORCED retirement against ones wishes. Every individual's wants and needs are different. Just because you may want to retire does not give AC or ACPA the right to force someone else to retire who still enjoys their job.

Re read Mechanic787's post:

"As I understand it, the Canadian Human Rights Act was not written with Air Canada pilots in mind"

"To you the question may be contractual, but to the tribunal and the court the sole question is whether the mandatory retirement exemption to the general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age under the statute is applicable or is not applicable, regardless of the context of your own contractual circumstances. As I understand the law, collective agreements, regardless of the actual or implied terms contained within them and regardless of the agreement or non-agreement of individuals within the bargaining unit to submit to the terms and conditions of those agreements, cannot violate the human rights legislation because human rights legislation has supervening legal authority over those agreements. End of debate.

Unless and until you get your mind around the legal issue here, as opposed to the moral issue, you do yourself a disservice. In addition, you are setting yourself up for a significant disappointment, once the decisions are ultimately released."