Back of the bus, Rosa!Text of ACPA Submission to the Parliamentary Committee
February 15, 2011, by Captain Paul Strachan, President ...
It's the role of Parliament to protect human rights, but we don't talk specifically here about individual rights. We are talking about human rights in the broad sense, and that includes "collective" rights of the members of an organization such as our own. And so Parliament's task then is to balance, to find a balance between those rights that properly protects the interests of all.
Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
Johnny Mapleleaf
- Rank 3
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
It is hearting to know that Strac thinks the guys on the 777 and 330 are overpaid...gee Strac do you think we'll see a pay raise come out of these negotiations for the so called senior guys...this guy is an idiot..
Could it be that Captain Paul Strachan works for the Company...
Could it be that Captain Paul Strachan works for the Company...
-
Johnny Mapleleaf
- Rank 3
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
I'll bet the average member of that Committee was really impressed with his argument. Like, "So you need to be very careful that this Bill does not create unintended consequences." Such as transfer of wealth, impacting the deferred compensation scheme. Forcing pilots to work a year or so extra at over $200,000 per year in order to get their $130,000 per year pension, instead of their $125,000 per year pension for working zero days per year.
Must have really struck a sympathetic chord with the members of the Committee who have a large proportion of their constituents out of work or below the poverty line or that have zero wealth to transfer.
Right on, Captain. It really helps to get the public really prepped for the months ahead when we announce that we are going to go on strike for more money.
You know, politics is not that much different than flying airplanes. Some days, you're just not doing anyone any favours by showing up for work.
Must have really struck a sympathetic chord with the members of the Committee who have a large proportion of their constituents out of work or below the poverty line or that have zero wealth to transfer.
Right on, Captain. It really helps to get the public really prepped for the months ahead when we announce that we are going to go on strike for more money.
You know, politics is not that much different than flying airplanes. Some days, you're just not doing anyone any favours by showing up for work.
-
Norwegianwood
- Rank 4
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:16 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
You didn't know ACPA stood for - AIR CANADA pilots associationmorefun wrote:Could it be that Captain Paul Strachan works for the Company...
-
777longhaul
- Rank 3
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Ladies and Gentlemen
While you are reading this, text translation of acpa's highest leader, keep in mind the future, you know, when acpa is before the courts, saying how they want the indexing back into the pension plan, that Stanley took away. Oh, and when acpa is saying they need more money, and are thinking about going on strike, or, when acpa gets to be the poster boy, for saying that they make so much money on their big over blown pension, that they dont need to be overly concerned about people that will be forced, (screwed out) of their employment because they have,,,,a plan that is not as good as acpa's. Think about how this goes down on record, to come back and haunt acpa over the next decade(s), when dealing with the press, the government, the paying public, and the co during any kind of bargaining, you know, just like the kind going on RIGHT NOW, with the contract set to expire shortly.
And dont forget about the "majority vote", you know the one where they got far less than 50% of the pilots to vote.
Now, read this from acpa's highest leader, and Bill Petrie.
Go to Part 2. Move the slider forward to the 20:30 minute mark to hear this: (you can view/listen to it on the FP60 site:)
Government Hearings:
Member: How was this pension scheme actually brought into your original plan; the very first time, how was it done?
Mr. Petrie: The pension plan has been around since the '50s, and like all federal employers, a pension plan was introduced at the airline...
Member: How was it introduced, Mr. Petrie? That is the gist of my question. How? Was it put to the vote to the Air Canada employees? How was it introduced?
Mr. Petrie: It was... I wasn't there, so obviously, cause I am not that old, it was part of a, as I understand, it was part of negotiations. Every change that's made to the pension plan, every...and we have made several changes to those pension plans over the years since its inception, have been ratified in the bargaining process. So they have been, they've been voted upon by the members when they vote on the collective agreement. Pension is just one aspect of the collective agreement that we seek changes to, and when they are changed, they go through the ratification process.
Member: The reason that question to either Mr. Strachan or Mr. Petrie is that I have had a chance to read the notes that Mr. Vilven had given to us, and on Page 4, I quote, he says...
"The age-60 mandatory retirement provision was implemented at Air Canada by fiat of the Air Canada management in 1957." So it was definitely before all of our time. "There was no negotiation involved." he says, "As late as 1980, the mandatory retirement provision was not yet located within the collective agreement or within the Air Canada Pension Plan. It existed simply within the policy documents of Air Canada."
And then he says, "In the mid-1980's, the mandatory retirement provision was inserted by reference into the collective agreement itself. When that occurred, at no time did the pilots' union place the question of mandatory retirement before the general membership of the union for discussion and for ratification. It was simply inserted without ratification, and without even advising the membership that that had been done."
Would you care to comment?
Mr. Strachan: I'm sorry. I think, I think that's patently incorrect because every collective agreement that has ever been established between Air Canada and its pilots has been ratified by the pilots.
================================================
Text of ACPA Submission to the Parliamentary Committee
February 15, 2011, by Captain Paul Strachan, President
Thank you, Madame Chair. It's our pleasure to be here today, Members of the Committee—nice
to see you. Ah, we're here obviously to speak to an important contemplated piece of public
policy, that is Bill C-481, and we support the intent of the Bill so far as it seeks to defend
individuals from arbitrary or discriminatory practices, specifically termination of employment by
virtue of age. Obviously a noble cause.
Specific to our case, we agree that 15(1)(c) is too broad a provision of the Human Rights Act
because in our instance, the Air Canada pilots, being some 3,000 professionals, form more than
half the airline pilots in the country. So we could then unilaterally or de facto set a "normal age
of retirement" for people "in similar positions." If then that serves as justification under the Act
for a different employer to terminate the employ of a different individual who does not have the
benefit of the robust collective agreement and pension provisions that our members do, then
that clearly is not appropriate.
So while we agree that 15(1)(c) is too broad, we must implore upon the Committee to consider
careful exceptions with this Bill, for fear that this Bill is also too broad.
It's the role of Parliament to protect human rights, but we don't talk specifically here about
individual rights. We are talking about human rights in the broad sense, and that includes
"collective" rights of the members of an organization such as our own. And so Parliament's task
then is to balance, to find a balance between those rights that properly protects the interests of
all.
Our members have negotiated, as I said, a robust collective agreement, of which its pension
plan forms part. Our pension plan is a very generous one. It goes to the limits of the Pension
Act and the Income Tax Act, and then beyond, we have a supplementary employee retirement
plan, and in fact incorporate an retirement compensation agreement into the overall scheme as
well, such that our members expect—a vast, vast majority of them expect—to retire from their
employment at Air Canada with a pension that places them still in the top 1% of the income
earners in the country. Six figures in most—in the vast majority of cases.
Insofar as Parliament may seek to protect the rights of the individual, you must be cognizant of
the fact that you will necessarily impact the collective rights of our 3,000 professionals who have
told us by a margin of almost 85% that they favour the current ability to retire at their negotiated
age of retirement, which is 60.
Concomitant with our pension provisions, which I say are very generous, we have a true
deferred wage scheme. And by that I mean we have a ladder of progression on our wage scale
that starts very low, artificially low, in the early years of employment, and ramps up over the
course of one's career, and in fact, to overpayment in the final years, which allows our members
to maximize their retirement earnings. Cause their final average earnings, their FAE is
calculated on the basis of those five final years.
If you stall the progression up the ladder, it stagnates for some period of time, and the transfer
of wealth that occurs is significant, because not only is a member now stagnating at some lower
‐ 2 ‐
level on the ladder—unless you're, unless you're in the top 15%, approximately, unless you've
achieved your highest progression expected up that ladder at the point of stagnation, then you
lose in some degree. And in the case of our most junior members, the transfer of wealth is
measured in seven figures, because not only are they suffering from the lack of progression in
their income at the—during the period of stagnation, but they lose the time value of that money
and can never recover. So insofar as you are allowing those few individuals who might like to
change the rules and stay longer, you are now impacting the rights of all those other members
because now you—you're forcing them to stay longer, if they want to equalize their career, their
career potential and expected earnings, but you are also taking away the time value of that
money forever.
So it's a zero sum game. So you need to be very careful that this Bill does not create
unintended consequences. So it's for that reason that we propose an amendment to this Bill,
that rather than strike 15(1)(c) from the Human Rights Act, that it would be more thoughtful and
appropriate to amend it to allow for specific exceptions such as in the circumstances in which
we find ourselves.
And, so, our proposal would be then, that the 15(1)(c) be amended to read that it is not a
discriminatory practice if the termination of employment or refusal to employ is because of the
terms and conditions of a bona fide retirement or pension plan. And that that is justifiable and
balances the rights of the individual with the collective rights of a very large group of people.
Thank you.
While you are reading this, text translation of acpa's highest leader, keep in mind the future, you know, when acpa is before the courts, saying how they want the indexing back into the pension plan, that Stanley took away. Oh, and when acpa is saying they need more money, and are thinking about going on strike, or, when acpa gets to be the poster boy, for saying that they make so much money on their big over blown pension, that they dont need to be overly concerned about people that will be forced, (screwed out) of their employment because they have,,,,a plan that is not as good as acpa's. Think about how this goes down on record, to come back and haunt acpa over the next decade(s), when dealing with the press, the government, the paying public, and the co during any kind of bargaining, you know, just like the kind going on RIGHT NOW, with the contract set to expire shortly.
And dont forget about the "majority vote", you know the one where they got far less than 50% of the pilots to vote.
Now, read this from acpa's highest leader, and Bill Petrie.
Go to Part 2. Move the slider forward to the 20:30 minute mark to hear this: (you can view/listen to it on the FP60 site:)
Government Hearings:
Member: How was this pension scheme actually brought into your original plan; the very first time, how was it done?
Mr. Petrie: The pension plan has been around since the '50s, and like all federal employers, a pension plan was introduced at the airline...
Member: How was it introduced, Mr. Petrie? That is the gist of my question. How? Was it put to the vote to the Air Canada employees? How was it introduced?
Mr. Petrie: It was... I wasn't there, so obviously, cause I am not that old, it was part of a, as I understand, it was part of negotiations. Every change that's made to the pension plan, every...and we have made several changes to those pension plans over the years since its inception, have been ratified in the bargaining process. So they have been, they've been voted upon by the members when they vote on the collective agreement. Pension is just one aspect of the collective agreement that we seek changes to, and when they are changed, they go through the ratification process.
Member: The reason that question to either Mr. Strachan or Mr. Petrie is that I have had a chance to read the notes that Mr. Vilven had given to us, and on Page 4, I quote, he says...
"The age-60 mandatory retirement provision was implemented at Air Canada by fiat of the Air Canada management in 1957." So it was definitely before all of our time. "There was no negotiation involved." he says, "As late as 1980, the mandatory retirement provision was not yet located within the collective agreement or within the Air Canada Pension Plan. It existed simply within the policy documents of Air Canada."
And then he says, "In the mid-1980's, the mandatory retirement provision was inserted by reference into the collective agreement itself. When that occurred, at no time did the pilots' union place the question of mandatory retirement before the general membership of the union for discussion and for ratification. It was simply inserted without ratification, and without even advising the membership that that had been done."
Would you care to comment?
Mr. Strachan: I'm sorry. I think, I think that's patently incorrect because every collective agreement that has ever been established between Air Canada and its pilots has been ratified by the pilots.
================================================
Text of ACPA Submission to the Parliamentary Committee
February 15, 2011, by Captain Paul Strachan, President
Thank you, Madame Chair. It's our pleasure to be here today, Members of the Committee—nice
to see you. Ah, we're here obviously to speak to an important contemplated piece of public
policy, that is Bill C-481, and we support the intent of the Bill so far as it seeks to defend
individuals from arbitrary or discriminatory practices, specifically termination of employment by
virtue of age. Obviously a noble cause.
Specific to our case, we agree that 15(1)(c) is too broad a provision of the Human Rights Act
because in our instance, the Air Canada pilots, being some 3,000 professionals, form more than
half the airline pilots in the country. So we could then unilaterally or de facto set a "normal age
of retirement" for people "in similar positions." If then that serves as justification under the Act
for a different employer to terminate the employ of a different individual who does not have the
benefit of the robust collective agreement and pension provisions that our members do, then
that clearly is not appropriate.
So while we agree that 15(1)(c) is too broad, we must implore upon the Committee to consider
careful exceptions with this Bill, for fear that this Bill is also too broad.
It's the role of Parliament to protect human rights, but we don't talk specifically here about
individual rights. We are talking about human rights in the broad sense, and that includes
"collective" rights of the members of an organization such as our own. And so Parliament's task
then is to balance, to find a balance between those rights that properly protects the interests of
all.
Our members have negotiated, as I said, a robust collective agreement, of which its pension
plan forms part. Our pension plan is a very generous one. It goes to the limits of the Pension
Act and the Income Tax Act, and then beyond, we have a supplementary employee retirement
plan, and in fact incorporate an retirement compensation agreement into the overall scheme as
well, such that our members expect—a vast, vast majority of them expect—to retire from their
employment at Air Canada with a pension that places them still in the top 1% of the income
earners in the country. Six figures in most—in the vast majority of cases.
Insofar as Parliament may seek to protect the rights of the individual, you must be cognizant of
the fact that you will necessarily impact the collective rights of our 3,000 professionals who have
told us by a margin of almost 85% that they favour the current ability to retire at their negotiated
age of retirement, which is 60.
Concomitant with our pension provisions, which I say are very generous, we have a true
deferred wage scheme. And by that I mean we have a ladder of progression on our wage scale
that starts very low, artificially low, in the early years of employment, and ramps up over the
course of one's career, and in fact, to overpayment in the final years, which allows our members
to maximize their retirement earnings. Cause their final average earnings, their FAE is
calculated on the basis of those five final years.
If you stall the progression up the ladder, it stagnates for some period of time, and the transfer
of wealth that occurs is significant, because not only is a member now stagnating at some lower
‐ 2 ‐
level on the ladder—unless you're, unless you're in the top 15%, approximately, unless you've
achieved your highest progression expected up that ladder at the point of stagnation, then you
lose in some degree. And in the case of our most junior members, the transfer of wealth is
measured in seven figures, because not only are they suffering from the lack of progression in
their income at the—during the period of stagnation, but they lose the time value of that money
and can never recover. So insofar as you are allowing those few individuals who might like to
change the rules and stay longer, you are now impacting the rights of all those other members
because now you—you're forcing them to stay longer, if they want to equalize their career, their
career potential and expected earnings, but you are also taking away the time value of that
money forever.
So it's a zero sum game. So you need to be very careful that this Bill does not create
unintended consequences. So it's for that reason that we propose an amendment to this Bill,
that rather than strike 15(1)(c) from the Human Rights Act, that it would be more thoughtful and
appropriate to amend it to allow for specific exceptions such as in the circumstances in which
we find ourselves.
And, so, our proposal would be then, that the 15(1)(c) be amended to read that it is not a
discriminatory practice if the termination of employment or refusal to employ is because of the
terms and conditions of a bona fide retirement or pension plan. And that that is justifiable and
balances the rights of the individual with the collective rights of a very large group of people.
Thank you.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
From what I have read on this forum, other forums, the CHRT transcripts, the Federal court transcripts, all of the available public domain court documents , it is painfully obvious that one of the parties to this ultra important issue for all of canadian society, is not telling the truth and that the units of that party will stoop to just about the lowest rung, short of committing a felony, so as to save the ME and the hell with the rest of said society.
Listening to the live feed yesterday, the ACPA presentation made my skin crawl more than once and if you need any proof, read the written transcript above. The closest analogy one could come up with at the present is Paul Strachan and Osni Moubarak in the same league, and on the same team with Bill Petrie/ Ben Ali of Tunisia coming in a close second. I am just sorry that these two individuals were not sworn in as then they would have been subject to harsh consequences. Paul Strachan's comment that what George Vilven gave the commitee is incorrect has to be the perfect example of how far this group will go to so as to grab it all for themselves. He, as ACPA's president, should and would be keenly aware of the past and from were ACPA came from and he would have been breifed beforehand. I, for one, will venture that that same Paul Strachan WOULD NEVER, REPEAT NEVER DARE to show up PUBLICLY on this or any other forum except his own restricted sandbox and I would dare him to crawl out of his jaded surroundings and back up what he said.
It is high time they be publicly discredited. Yesterday's AC pilots deposition just reinforced my wish that they eventually get what is coming to them and it is not Santa Claus.
Listening to the live feed yesterday, the ACPA presentation made my skin crawl more than once and if you need any proof, read the written transcript above. The closest analogy one could come up with at the present is Paul Strachan and Osni Moubarak in the same league, and on the same team with Bill Petrie/ Ben Ali of Tunisia coming in a close second. I am just sorry that these two individuals were not sworn in as then they would have been subject to harsh consequences. Paul Strachan's comment that what George Vilven gave the commitee is incorrect has to be the perfect example of how far this group will go to so as to grab it all for themselves. He, as ACPA's president, should and would be keenly aware of the past and from were ACPA came from and he would have been breifed beforehand. I, for one, will venture that that same Paul Strachan WOULD NEVER, REPEAT NEVER DARE to show up PUBLICLY on this or any other forum except his own restricted sandbox and I would dare him to crawl out of his jaded surroundings and back up what he said.
It is high time they be publicly discredited. Yesterday's AC pilots deposition just reinforced my wish that they eventually get what is coming to them and it is not Santa Claus.
Last edited by duranium on Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Could it be that he has been fingered by your company for a post on what you people call the '' dark side or the witness protection program'' and he is shoring up his resume ?morefun wrote:It is hearting to know that Strac thinks the guys on the 777 and 330 are overpaid...gee Strac do you think we'll see a pay raise come out of these negotiations for the so called senior guys...this guy is an idiot..
Could it be that Captain Paul Strachan works for the Company...
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Don't see you guys having a tantrum about the part that he said that the beginning pay is also artificially low. But you guys only see what you want to see. He was just describing how bad our pay scheme is and that it's very top heavy which is why you guys want to stay. In saying that don't think for a second that if this goes through that the pay system will stay the same. You only have to look at the numbers between narrow body and wide body. If we are going to be held down and stagnant for a long time which will happen then it's time to share the pie. Most would rather have wealth now and evenly distributed. Less financial impact on us when this fly till ya die thing happens. And what about the part that he described that if progression is slowed because of this it will be the junior members who will suffer financially. But again you guys don't see that because it don't affect you. Ok maybe Rockie Is affected but he is all for a change in the pay and contract conditions.
Just remember what ever happens contract wise you guys brought it upon yourselves.
600RVR
Just remember what ever happens contract wise you guys brought it upon yourselves.
600RVR
-
Johnny Mapleleaf
- Rank 3
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
No problem. Just remember what ever happens damages wise you guys brought it upon yourselves.600RVR wrote:Just remember what ever happens contract wise you guys brought it upon yourselves.
We have been suggesting for over five years that this isn't about us, its about the law of the land, but you evidently still don't get it, and will continue to slag us for your inability to see the forest for the trees. The very idea that you can attribute to us what Parliament is doing just shows how out of touch with reality that you still are.
The unfortunate part about the disconnect between us is that we all lose, together.
Last edited by Johnny Mapleleaf on Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Ah you got me all wrong I do get it. What I'm saying is that a system and contract that we have now is geared towards giving to those who are close to retirement. When you change the retirement then you must change the contract which will happen. I can't stay loaded at the top. I'm fine if it's the law. But if it is the law then why is in going through a bill reading and review in Parliament. If it was law then this is a whole thing is a waist of time. Its not law yet, and the way things sound with this bill it's not going to be all cut and dry as you guys may think.Johnny Mapleleaf wrote:No problem. Just remember what ever happens damages wise you guys brought it upon yourselves.600RVR wrote:Just remember what ever happens contract wise you guys brought it upon yourselves.
We have been suggesting for over five years that this isn't about us, its about the law of the land, but you evidently still don't get it, and will continue to slag us. Everyone loses, together.
600RVR
-
Johnny Mapleleaf
- Rank 3
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Not quite. Why do you think Parliament has acted now? It is only repealing what the Tribunal and the Court has already declared illegal. The Tribunal said that its decisions affect only the parties before it. There was over $1 million in legal services pumped into the litigation on behalf of the complainants so far, with no end in sight. What individual can afford to assert his rights under the statute when faced with those costs.600RVR wrote:I'm fine if it's the law. But if it is the law then why is in going through a bill reading and review in Parliament. If it was law then this is a whole thing is a waist of time.
I am not talking just about pilots. Everyone in the federal jursidiction. Parliament is repealing the exemption for two reasons. First, it agrees with the Court that the exemptions violate the fundamental human rights that are protected under the Charter and the Human Rights Act. Second, nobody should be forced to go through eight years of litigation like George Vilven was, simply to remain employed without age discrimination. That's why. It was illegal in 2003. George Vilven was reinstated as a result. It was illegal in 2005. Neil Kelly was reinstated as a result. It was illegal in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and it is illegal today.
There are thousands of workers outside of pilots and outside of the Air Canada that are adversely affected by the existing law that forces individuals to fight this legal battle for one purpose only, to make lawyers wealthy. That is wrong. Parliament sees that and is putting an end to it, for once and for all.
Last edited by Johnny Mapleleaf on Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
600RVR wrote:Don't see you guys having a tantrum about the part that he said that the beginning pay is also artificially low. But you guys only see what you want to see. He was just describing how bad our pay scheme is and that it's very top heavy which is why you guys want to stay. In saying that don't think for a second that if this goes through that the pay system will stay the same. You only have to look at the numbers between narrow body and wide body. If we are going to be held down and stagnant for a long time which will happen then it's time to share the pie. Most would rather have wealth now and evenly distributed. Less financial impact on us when this fly till ya die thing happens. And what about the part that he described that if progression is slowed because of this it will be the junior members who will suffer financially. But again you guys don't see that because it don't affect you. Ok maybe Rockie Is affected but he is all for a change in the pay and contract conditions.
Just remember what ever happens contract wise you guys brought it upon yourselves.
600RVR
Personal attacks removed by Sulako. Play nice.
you blame the top end part of the salary spectrum of your group for the shortcomings the bottom end is suffering. Suggestion: how about giving that a hard look in the mirror that you should park in front of your nose pronto.
As was explained to me, your pension is based on what you call a MPU and has a direct relation to your maximum attainable pension. So, if some of you cannot attain the maximum pension, for whatever reason, nobody will and what better way to ensure same by bringing down the maximum salary so NOBODY CAN never, ever see the AC pilots pension holy grail and that folks is the best way to punish everyone.
Well bottom end, some day, the roles will be inversed and top end you will be but, by that time, the way things seem to be paning out, you will have bit off your nose to spite your face or as some here have already written, blown both your feet off.
PS. I am not one of ''you guys '' but this is going to be entertainnement at it's best watching the slow implosion and accompanying self immolation. Keep on digging that hole, folks.
-
Morry Bund
- Rank 3
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:32 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Member: You came to see me the other day and in our discussions and what you presented here today you mentioned several times that what was important to the Air Canada pilots was this—excuse me for calling it this—pyramid scheme—it's not negative it's just a way of describing it—which they go through and how the system is organized in such a way that the apex is in the last five years of that air pilot.
But this isn't the only kind of pension scheme that airlines have. I understand other airlines have different types of pension schemes. West Jest for example, Air Canada Jazz has different kinds of compensation schemes. I wondered how you would describe if you were to change over to such a compensation scheme such as West Jet or Air Canada Jazz have how long it would take you to change your way to such a system? And, would you still be against mandatory retirement if you had one of those two schemes originally?
Captain Strachan: I think in terms of comparison with other groups you are correct, there are different pay systems out there and obviously many different types of retirement compensation schemes and pension plans. None that I can think of as generous as our own either in terms of the pay or the pension. That of course is by design and that flows from our collectively bargained provisions.
We're a democratic organization and we take our strength and our mandate from the wishes of our membership. Certainly in terms of this issue they are very clear that they see all of the provisions of their employment, including the negotiated age of retirement at 60 as a benefit, that they are able to draw a very generous pension plan at an earlier age than many others. It does not preclude them from seeking work elsewhere. It's just the provisions of employment that we all agreed to the day we signed on the dotted line. We knew what it was and we all saw the rationale behind it because it was of great benefit to all of us. [emphasis added]
But this isn't the only kind of pension scheme that airlines have. I understand other airlines have different types of pension schemes. West Jest for example, Air Canada Jazz has different kinds of compensation schemes. I wondered how you would describe if you were to change over to such a compensation scheme such as West Jet or Air Canada Jazz have how long it would take you to change your way to such a system? And, would you still be against mandatory retirement if you had one of those two schemes originally?
Captain Strachan: I think in terms of comparison with other groups you are correct, there are different pay systems out there and obviously many different types of retirement compensation schemes and pension plans. None that I can think of as generous as our own either in terms of the pay or the pension. That of course is by design and that flows from our collectively bargained provisions.
We're a democratic organization and we take our strength and our mandate from the wishes of our membership. Certainly in terms of this issue they are very clear that they see all of the provisions of their employment, including the negotiated age of retirement at 60 as a benefit, that they are able to draw a very generous pension plan at an earlier age than many others. It does not preclude them from seeking work elsewhere. It's just the provisions of employment that we all agreed to the day we signed on the dotted line. We knew what it was and we all saw the rationale behind it because it was of great benefit to all of us. [emphasis added]
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
O.k fine we will see what happens with the Bill. Again I don't think that it's going to be all roses for everyone. So when you guys get to come back or stay longer how to you feel about having a contract that spreads out more evenly so that all the wealth is not at the top. Because for the first few years the only ones who bennifet will be those who are already at the top. By the time I get there if this goes through I'll be much older on a widebody than originally planned so therefore a shorter time in the left seat which will cost me big time fininacialy .Now are you all fore a system that will bennifet your junior conterparts better fininacialy. Even if it costs those who are bennifeting from the system we have now. As you can see it can't stay the same as it is now.
If your going to say it's a done deal then it's time to debate changing a system that bennifets all not just a few who are cheery picking.
600RVR
If your going to say it's a done deal then it's time to debate changing a system that bennifets all not just a few who are cheery picking.
600RVR
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
One thing for sure, it'll be good for a laugh. Has ACPA told you how much of the windfall gains due to FlyPast60 that they will be leaving on the table?600RVR wrote:Just remember what ever happens contract wise you guys brought it upon yourselves.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
duranium,
Calling me an idiot now from what I've seen from your posts your on a one track mind. I'm open to anything but as you guys say changes are coming well yes sir they are. But resorting to name calling because you fail to understand the other side says alot about who your are sir. What was that you said about have a close look in the mirror, well it's obvious you don't practice what you preach. Then you wonder why we have a hard time accepting your group.
All the best
600RVR
Calling me an idiot now from what I've seen from your posts your on a one track mind. I'm open to anything but as you guys say changes are coming well yes sir they are. But resorting to name calling because you fail to understand the other side says alot about who your are sir. What was that you said about have a close look in the mirror, well it's obvious you don't practice what you preach. Then you wonder why we have a hard time accepting your group.
All the best
600RVR
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Vic777,
What do that have to do With changing a contract. Last I knew ACPA don't pay my me. And how much did V&K get in a payout. Nothing close to what you guys thought. And do you still get a payout if you can't finish training. Honest question
What do that have to do With changing a contract. Last I knew ACPA don't pay my me. And how much did V&K get in a payout. Nothing close to what you guys thought. And do you still get a payout if you can't finish training. Honest question
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
I think you just asked me in essence ... "What does the fact that AC is going to reap a billion plus in the form of a windfall gain, do to the implementation of FlyPast60, have to do with changing a contract?". Is that really what you are asking?600RVR wrote:Vic777,
What do that have to do With changing a contract.
ACPA negotiates with AC for your pay.Last I knew ACPA don't pay my me.
I don't know off hand, I could look it up. I really don't care. Whatever they got, they would have been better off if they had not been "forced retired".And how much did V&K get in a payout.
I had no preconceived notion as to what they would get ... I agree with you, it should have been more. Of course they should get paid regardless of whether they come back or not, the award is a partial payment for past damages ... that means AC and ACPA (by choice) must pay it, plus interest if they try to renege, or stall.Nothing close to what you guys thought. And do you still get a payout if you can't finish training. Honest question
Last edited by vic777 on Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Everybody loves a "Freak Show".duranium wrote: PS. I am not one of ''you guys '' but this is going to be entertainnement at it's best watching the slow implosion and accompanying self immolation. Keep on digging that hole, folks.
Did you get the part where the ACPA President told the World that he thinks Air Canada Senior Captains are overpaid?
This during contract negotiations, no less!
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Wow, the Spin Doctors put in a little overtime yesterday on the hearing!
Duranium:
Duranium:
I have read your posts and your understanding of the ACPA/AC Collective Agreement and how hiring has been accomplished historically is lacking. Obviously not an AC pilot and I doubt you are even a pilot. So what special interest group has you so fired up that you are wishing ill on an entire membership and their families? Classy.'' It pisses me off....'' translation into Shakespearian English : I am so jealous of you because you were born before me and had the wisdom to apply to AC at a younger age than I. ''.
Are you kidding me? Comparing a union president to a disgraced dictator? The Nazi comparisons will be next!The closest analogy one could come up with at the present is Paul Strachan and Osni Moubarak in the same league, and on the same team with Bill Petrie/ Ben Ali of Tunisia coming in a close second.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Hi 777;777longhaul wrote:yycflyguy
Please think about this fact. You were hired at 38, good.
However, without previous pilots fighting the age discrimination issue, (AC would not hire you at that age, you were to old) then, you would have never been able to be employeed at ac. You have already, benefited, from the age discrimination issues, and you can benefit from it, by having the option to work longer, at your choice. It is about the freedom, to choose, not to be forced into retirement.
Get acpa to change the max years to 3 years from 5. That is very important for ALL ac pilots.What effort is being spent on that issue?
Get acpa to change the indexing issue. How much effort is being spent on that? Those 2 items, are more important, than all of this effort to stop the pilots from having the freedom to choose.
Not sure why/how you believed I was hired at 38 as it wasn't my situation. I don't buy the whole "we allowed older pilots to be hired thanks to previous "discrimination" complaints". It was a function of the company moving from 3 crew aircraft where a S/O was required to modern airliners that only require 2 therefore the company needed to hire experienced, qualified F/Os. It took the candidates more time to accumulate the desired qualifications for their first crack at the airline. I would have preferred to have been hired at age 20 as a S/O and start accumulating my years of service.
BTW, when the company moved from 3 crew to 2 crew aircraft where was the pilot windfall on that one?
Your suggestions to change the best 5 years to the best 3 and the indexing is a great suggestion but I suspect the company wont go for that as it will end up costing them money.
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
yycflyguy, I think that comparison has been done as well by a certain lawyer for the flypast60 group.
Cheers
600RVR
Cheers
600RVR
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Let me be more down to earth with you. You want to change your contract. Go right ahead, do it, load up the bottom if that is what you wish. Put it to a vote and, the best part, you get to vote on it because you are part of the group, I am not so I have no vested interest whatsoever in your contract. Now, do you really think that you have a better hope in hell than an icecube that your company will accept this new scheeme of things ? Could be, if it saves them a pile of money and it probably will because they will not have to pay out as much in pension money to future retirees. Do you think that you, as a collective, will see any benefits flowing to you from AC savings ? Could be, but if past history is a good teacher and also your track record at negotiations, you have a better than 50% chance of coming up empty.600RVR wrote:duranium,
Calling me an idiot now from what I've seen from your posts your on a one track mind. I'm open to anything but as you guys say changes are coming well yes sir they are. But resorting to name calling because you fail to understand the other side says alot about who your are sir. What was that you said about have a close look in the mirror, well it's obvious you don't practice what you preach. Then you wonder why we have a hard time accepting your group.
All the best
600RVR
The underlying tone of your writings strongly suggest that you wish change as a way of paying back the fact that you are at the low end of the spectrum and that this is patently unfair. Sorry, but that is called demographics. You were born after most people senior to you and the climb up the ladder is done from the bottom up, not the other way around. Your writings also very stongly suggest that you are part of the helicopter generation and that is big trouble in the society for all of us that live in same.
You want change, check out how your Member of Parliament votes on Bill C-481 and vote him out if your way of thinking is not his because it is Parliament that will change the law.
As for accepting, as you write, '' your group'' of which I am not part of, may I very strongly suggest, and this is not rocket science by any stretch, that you get your mind around the simple fact that, in a tug of war with a senior crew member ( once again, I am not part of your group ), be it operationnal or otherwise, you better come very well equiped or you are going to be, in less than half a heartbeat, on the very short side of the equation.
-
Idle Thrust
- Rank 1
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 1:40 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
YYCflyguy wrote:
http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t00 ... _03_18.pdf
http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files ... _10_26.pdf
The S/O position was never used exclusively as a training seat - many highly experienced pilots began there and many of lesser experience went directly to the right seat. And the "Age 28 max" was never enforced rigidly, there were many hired older - the max-age limit just allowed AC the seed the draw, not to mention the potential of more useful work years from each pilot.
That's the history and is probably one of the causes for the current dispute - hired at 40, need more than 20 years in the pension, hence the Hall bandwagon.
Edited for spelling.
That's a new spin on this. In fact the company fought its hiring age limit and lost, it had little or nothing to do with the number of seats in the cockpit. These refer:I don't buy the whole "we allowed older pilots to be hired thanks to previous "discrimination" complaints". It was a function of the company moving from 3 crew aircraft where a S/O was required to modern airliners that only require 2 therefore the company needed to hire experienced, qualified F/Os. It took the candidates more time to accumulate the desired qualifications for their first crack at the airline.
http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t00 ... _03_18.pdf
http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files ... _10_26.pdf
The S/O position was never used exclusively as a training seat - many highly experienced pilots began there and many of lesser experience went directly to the right seat. And the "Age 28 max" was never enforced rigidly, there were many hired older - the max-age limit just allowed AC the seed the draw, not to mention the potential of more useful work years from each pilot.
That's the history and is probably one of the causes for the current dispute - hired at 40, need more than 20 years in the pension, hence the Hall bandwagon.
Edited for spelling.
-
accumulous
- Rank 5
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm
Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011
Yycflyguy wrote:
You better pour yourself a nice cup of Decaf and read this document. This is why you were hired when you were hired.
Three decades ago a group of pilots fought and won the right to be hired after the age of 28. Consequently the demographic shift moved 2900 of today’s pilots right clean outside the Pension Envelope that Mr. Strachan seeks to deny his own constituents, and indeed the 800,000 other federally regulated employees.
Trying to usurp the futures of every Federally regulated employee in the country with factually extinct data.
Read it – clear as a bell from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in 1983. The final shot from the nail gun with regard to age discrimination in hiring practices at Air Canada, setting the stage for 2900 pilots’ non-access to the pension stream 30 years hence.
http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vh ... isruling=0
Here’s the beginning of it – the remaining umpteen pages are even better. If the presentation made to Parliament could not even deduce how the Age 60 position came into being in the first place, they sure had not even the remotest hope of knowing why 2900 pilots have the door slammed shut at the other end at 60. The Collective Pie is trash.
Here is the conclusion to an act that started over 3 decades ago and concluded in 1983.
Read this conclusion then read the beginning then read the entire document.
- 100 Summary
The Tribunal concludes that Air Canada’s use of age as a
factor in its present hiring policy is a discriminatory practice
contrary to sections 7 and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
This policy is not supported by a bona fide occupational
requirement since the evidence does not show that it is reasonably
necessary to assure the performance of the job without endangering
the employee or others. There are reasonable alternative measures
already in use by Air Canada to achieve its objective of a healthy
and safe pilot force. Neither is such a requirement supported on
economic grounds.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Although the Review
Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction to approach the record de
novo and has not dealt in much detail with the reasoning in the
decision of the initial Tribunal, the Tribunal does not intend
thereby to imply any significant disagreement with the reasoning of
Mr. Lederman. The matter is remanded to Mr. Lederman to deal with
the question of relief under section 41(2) of the Canadian Human
Rights Act.
Decision rendered on October 26, 1983
T.D. 11/83
IN THE MATTER OF THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
S.C. 1976-77, c.33, as amended.
AND IN THE MATTER of the appeal filed by Air Canada
dated April 16, 1982, against the Human Rights
Tribunal Decision pronouced March 18, 1982.
BETWEEN:
PAUL S. CARSON, RAMON SANZ, WILLIAM NASH
BARRY JAMES and ARIE TALL
Complainants
(Respondents)
- AND -
AIR CANADA
Respondent
(Appellant)
DECISION OF THE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Before: Robert W. Kerr
Peter A. Cumming
M. Wendy Robson
Appearances: John C. Murray and C.A. Morley for the Appellant,
Air Canada
George Hunter and David Aylen for the Respondents
Heard: Pre-Hearing: - August 9, 1982 - Toronto, Ontario
Hearing: December 8, 9, 10, 1982 - Toronto,
Ontario
February 16, 17, 1983 - Toronto,
Ontario
>-
IN THE MATTER OF THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
S.C. 1976-77, c.33, as amended.
AND IN THE MATTER of the appeal filed by Air Canada
dated April 16, 1982, against the Human Rights
Tribunal Decision pronounced March 18, 1982.
BETWEEN:
________________________________________
PAUL S. CARSON, RAMON SANZ, WILLIAM NASH
BARRY JAMES and ARIE TALL
Complainants
(Respondents)
- AND -
AIR CANADA
Respondent
(Appellant)
This is an appeal by Air Canada from a decision rendered by
Sidney N. Lederman, Q.C., a Tribunal appointed pursuant to section
39(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Tribunal found the
complaints under sections 7 and 10 of the said Act to have been
substantiated.
For the purposes of this decision (and since no further
factual evidence was adduced nor was exception taken to the facts
as found by the Tribunal), those facts giving rise to the
complaints may be briefly summarized as follows.
Each complainant was an applicant for the position of pilot
with the Appellant employer, Air Canada. Each was advised in
varying terms that his
>-
- 2 age
was a factor in denying employment as all were over the age of
28 years at the date of the relevant application and the employer
had indicated a preference for applicants in the low to mid-twenty
age range.
Discrimination having been found, the onus shifted to the
employer to prove a bona fide occupational requirement and the
Tribunal found that it had not discharged that onus under section
14(a) of the Act. It is essentially from that finding that the
appeal was taken before this Tribunal.
Time to bring you ‘Back to the Future’ in your obsolete DeLorean.Not sure why/how you believed I was hired at 38 as it wasn't my situation. I don't buy the whole "we allowed older pilots to be hired thanks to previous "discrimination" complaints".
You better pour yourself a nice cup of Decaf and read this document. This is why you were hired when you were hired.
Three decades ago a group of pilots fought and won the right to be hired after the age of 28. Consequently the demographic shift moved 2900 of today’s pilots right clean outside the Pension Envelope that Mr. Strachan seeks to deny his own constituents, and indeed the 800,000 other federally regulated employees.
Trying to usurp the futures of every Federally regulated employee in the country with factually extinct data.
Read it – clear as a bell from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in 1983. The final shot from the nail gun with regard to age discrimination in hiring practices at Air Canada, setting the stage for 2900 pilots’ non-access to the pension stream 30 years hence.
http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vh ... isruling=0
Here’s the beginning of it – the remaining umpteen pages are even better. If the presentation made to Parliament could not even deduce how the Age 60 position came into being in the first place, they sure had not even the remotest hope of knowing why 2900 pilots have the door slammed shut at the other end at 60. The Collective Pie is trash.
Here is the conclusion to an act that started over 3 decades ago and concluded in 1983.
Read this conclusion then read the beginning then read the entire document.
- 100 Summary
The Tribunal concludes that Air Canada’s use of age as a
factor in its present hiring policy is a discriminatory practice
contrary to sections 7 and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
This policy is not supported by a bona fide occupational
requirement since the evidence does not show that it is reasonably
necessary to assure the performance of the job without endangering
the employee or others. There are reasonable alternative measures
already in use by Air Canada to achieve its objective of a healthy
and safe pilot force. Neither is such a requirement supported on
economic grounds.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Although the Review
Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction to approach the record de
novo and has not dealt in much detail with the reasoning in the
decision of the initial Tribunal, the Tribunal does not intend
thereby to imply any significant disagreement with the reasoning of
Mr. Lederman. The matter is remanded to Mr. Lederman to deal with
the question of relief under section 41(2) of the Canadian Human
Rights Act.
Decision rendered on October 26, 1983
T.D. 11/83
IN THE MATTER OF THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
S.C. 1976-77, c.33, as amended.
AND IN THE MATTER of the appeal filed by Air Canada
dated April 16, 1982, against the Human Rights
Tribunal Decision pronouced March 18, 1982.
BETWEEN:
PAUL S. CARSON, RAMON SANZ, WILLIAM NASH
BARRY JAMES and ARIE TALL
Complainants
(Respondents)
- AND -
AIR CANADA
Respondent
(Appellant)
DECISION OF THE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Before: Robert W. Kerr
Peter A. Cumming
M. Wendy Robson
Appearances: John C. Murray and C.A. Morley for the Appellant,
Air Canada
George Hunter and David Aylen for the Respondents
Heard: Pre-Hearing: - August 9, 1982 - Toronto, Ontario
Hearing: December 8, 9, 10, 1982 - Toronto,
Ontario
February 16, 17, 1983 - Toronto,
Ontario
>-
IN THE MATTER OF THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
S.C. 1976-77, c.33, as amended.
AND IN THE MATTER of the appeal filed by Air Canada
dated April 16, 1982, against the Human Rights
Tribunal Decision pronounced March 18, 1982.
BETWEEN:
________________________________________
PAUL S. CARSON, RAMON SANZ, WILLIAM NASH
BARRY JAMES and ARIE TALL
Complainants
(Respondents)
- AND -
AIR CANADA
Respondent
(Appellant)
This is an appeal by Air Canada from a decision rendered by
Sidney N. Lederman, Q.C., a Tribunal appointed pursuant to section
39(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Tribunal found the
complaints under sections 7 and 10 of the said Act to have been
substantiated.
For the purposes of this decision (and since no further
factual evidence was adduced nor was exception taken to the facts
as found by the Tribunal), those facts giving rise to the
complaints may be briefly summarized as follows.
Each complainant was an applicant for the position of pilot
with the Appellant employer, Air Canada. Each was advised in
varying terms that his
>-
- 2 age
was a factor in denying employment as all were over the age of
28 years at the date of the relevant application and the employer
had indicated a preference for applicants in the low to mid-twenty
age range.
Discrimination having been found, the onus shifted to the
employer to prove a bona fide occupational requirement and the
Tribunal found that it had not discharged that onus under section
14(a) of the Act. It is essentially from that finding that the
appeal was taken before this Tribunal.
