Mandatory Retirement Repeal Passes 2nd Reading in Parliament

[yycflyguy]

4hrs, yycguy, DD and others who have commented here re the impending age restriction change:

Please explain to me why you need to attack these individuals. After five years, they havent' kept one single pilot re-employed. They lost two Tribunal decisions this summer, and there is nothing certain about their prospects of getting any other pilots back in front of you on the seniority list.

Everything was fairly quiet here for the past six months, until the GOVERNMENT did what it has been attempting to do since the first Bill was introduced in 1992 to repeal the mandatory retirement exemption. Now, because the government tells everyone that the world isn't flat, you feel that you must scapegoat your fellow pilots who are on record as supporting what the government has been planning to do for almost two decades?

What have you done to prepare yourself and your union for the changes that are coming at you now? Have you suggested ways of working with the changes to minimize the adverse impact? Have you supported any efforts within your union to manage the changes? Or have you simply sat and waited until the lights went out so that you could curse the dark?

Show me where I "attacked" anyone?!

Have I suggested changes to mitigate the impact to my union? Yes. Are they being implemented? Have to wait and see.

The government has not been preparing to abolish mandatory retirement for the past 2 decades. That is hyperbole. It is the recent Conservative government who has but forward the bill. 2 times now as the Federal election distracted them from their first attempt. The Hon (?) Lisa Raitt doing the dirty work of meddling in workers rights. The same Conservative government that has been pissing off unionized labour in several industries. CWB, CUPW, CUPE, ALPA, CAW.... soon there will be nobody left

[Raymond Hall]

The government has not been preparing to abolish mandatory retirement for the past 2 decades. That is hyperbole.

With respect, sir, before you make statements, you should verify your "facts." The Liberal government introduced a Bill almost 20 years ago aimed at repealing the same section of the CHRA that this Bill is repealing. It died on the Order Paper when an election was called. Prime Minister Martin made unequivocal statements later stating that the new government opposed mandatory retirement.

In 2000, the Canadian Human Rights Review Panel, chair by the retired (at age 75) Supreme Court of Canada judge that wrote the 1990 SCC McKinney case on mandatory retirement of university professors, recommended in his Panel's official report to the Minister of Justice, that the mandatory retirement provision in the CHRA be repealed.

In the last session of Parliament, Bill C-481, a private members Bill introduced by a Liberal Member of Parliament received Second Reading with the open endorsement of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour.

Hyperbole, it is not.

The Hon (?) Lisa Raitt doing the dirty work of meddling in workers rights.

What you fail to consider is that the “worker’s rights” to which you refer are a very limited “conditional exception” to the workers’ right to be free from enumerated grounds of discrimination, granted in 1978. Those rights include the right to be free from age discrimination, which is a right that precedes the “right” that you assume that you have by reason of the collective agreement (the mandatory retirement provision was incorporated by reference into the collective agreement later, in the 1980’s), which is obviously not exempt from the scope human rights legislation. You can’t contract out of human rights legislation.

It is presumptuous to say that the government is “meddling” in workers’ rights when the right that you claim is a statutory right that was given to you by Parliament on a conditional basis in the first place. Absent the exemption (as is the case in the United States), there would have been no such right in the first place.

[Rockie]

My guess, since were still in divisional courts.......5 years before there is any answer to this mess.

You guess wrong. Air Canada cannot make the case for BFOR age 60 when the rest of the world has gone to 65. The latest ruling for Thwaites makes that abundantly clear, but somehow Air Canada pilots interpret that as a victory. I don't get it.

Mandatory retirement is about to be banned on discriminatory grounds by the federal government who has fast tracked the legislation, that means in about a year Air Canada will not be able to force retire people at age 60. This happened completely independently of the flypast60 group's efforts. If Air Canada wants to still retire people at any age they will have to make the BFOR case for the exemption before the CHRT. They failed dismally to do that for age 60 in the latest Thwaites ruling (read it) and it's not likely they'll be able to ever do it given the worldwide move toward the ICAO recommendations. They cannot force retire people while waiting for a ruling on it after this latest legislation becomes effective.

I've only said it about 150 times so far, but eventually Air Canada will pull their head out of their ass and try for age 65.

For its part ACPA will continue to foster discrimination against their own members in contravention of their duty of fair representation and common sense.

Air Canada pilots will continue to blame the flypast60 pilots long after they're dead and gone, even while they choose to work beyond age 60 themselves in twenty years time.

Those are my guesses, and they have remained unchanged since 2006.

[vic777]

Every Air Canada Pilot wants FlyPast60 to be implemented, they just don't want it to come into effect until they themselves turn Sixty. This is for obvious reasons, those who just turn Sixty as the rules change over will be the "big winners". So we get lots of hypocritical drivel from the Pilot group who are just hoping to put this off until they themselves can be the "big winners". But eventually the change will come. In the meantime ACPA will have frittered away an excellent bargaining chip. The loss to ACPA Pilots will never show up in any balance sheet, just know that it is huge.

[4hrstovegas]

Every Air Canada Pilot wants FlyPast60 to be implemented, they just don't want it to come into effect until they themselves turn Sixty.

No offence, but you are seriously deluded if you believe that. There are more Maximum 60 stickers on flight bags than baggage tags.

[vic777]

Every Air Canada Pilot wants FlyPast60 to be implemented, they just don't want it to come into effect until they themselves turn Sixty.

No offence, but you are seriously deluded if you believe that. There are more Maximum 60 stickers on flight bags than baggage tags.

Might as well cover up the "Don't Press to Test" Stickers, but what does that have to do with my statement? Don't delude yourself.

[Rockie]

There are more Maximum 60 stickers on flight bags than baggage tags.

No surprise there. Most pilots can't wait until people ahead of them on the list are gone, but in 10, 15 or 20 years they will be just like the guys who have already retired. Do you seriously think all the pilots still working are any different than the close to 200 who have filed complaints?

Don't flatter yourselves thinking you're somehow better because you're not. You're exactly the same with one very big exception. They now know what age discrimination is.

[yycflyguy]

The government has not been preparing to abolish mandatory retirement for the past 2 decades. That is hyperbole.

With respect, sir, before you make statements, you should verify your "facts." The Liberal government introduced a Bill almost 20 years ago aimed at repealing the same section of the CHRA that this Bill is repealing. It died on the Order Paper when an election was called. Prime Minister Martin made unequivocal statements later stating that the new government opposed mandatory retirement.

In 2000, the Canadian Human Rights Review Panel, chair by the retired (at age 75) Supreme Court of Canada judge that wrote the 1990 SCC McKinney case on mandatory retirement of university professors, recommended in his Panel's official report to the Minister of Justice, that the mandatory retirement provision in the CHRA be repealed.

In the last session of Parliament, Bill C-481, a private members Bill introduced by a Liberal Member of Parliament received Second Reading with the open endorsement of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour.

Hyperbole, it is not.

The Hon (?) Lisa Raitt doing the dirty work of meddling in workers rights.

What you fail to consider is that the “worker’s rights” to which you refer are a very limited “conditional exception” to the workers’ right to be free from enumerated grounds of discrimination, granted in 1978. Those rights include the right to be free from age discrimination, which is a right that precedes the “right” that you assume that you have by reason of the collective agreement (the mandatory retirement provision was incorporated by reference into the collective agreement later, in the 1980’s), which is obviously not exempt from the scope human rights legislation. You can’t contract out of human rights legislation.

It is presumptuous to say that the government is “meddling” in workers’ rights when the right that you claim is a statutory right that was given to you by Parliament on a conditional basis in the first place. Absent the exemption (as is the case in the United States), there would have been no such right in the first place.

Hi Raymond.

Thanks for the history lesson on the long list of attempts to implement your abolishment agenda. I never knew how many times it had failed until you explained it. Perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us on a few questions that I have:

We have a ruling on BFOR, correct?

Didn't the judge support the claims made by the company that re-instating all those victims would be unreasonably burdensome to the company? Probably resulting in layoffs for the most junior to accommodate the returning pilots plus the cost of providing full training courses and down training every other displaced pilot in the membership.

Perhaps you could elaborate on 15.1 (a) and (c) that provides the exceptions to the human rights that you vigourously defend and why this has not even been definitively ruled on?

How do you expect an outright victory from a Tribunal/LCC when we all know this will end up before the SCC?

Mitigating. With government legislation won't the abolishment contain a date from which all complainants will either be re-instated or case thrown out?

I admire your loyalty to the Conservative party by defending them but you mis-read my comments. The "meddling" which I spoke of relates to how the Minister of Labour/Conservative Party continues to interfere with unions' rights to negotiate collective agreements without the threat of intervention. Not just in the transportation industry but CWB, CUPW as well as every unionized group working at Air Canada and previously when Jazz was in negotiations. Do I really need to provide the links to support this?

[Raymond Hall]

Perhaps you could elaborate on 15.1 (a) and (c) that provides the exceptions to the human rights that you vigourously defend and why this has not even been definitively ruled on? How do you expect an outright victory from a Tribunal/LCC when we all know this will end up before the SCC? Mitigating. With government legislation won't the abolishment contain a date from which all complainants will either be re-instated or case thrown out?

As I stated here recently, I am doing my best to make my posts factual and not argumentative. Hence a short reply to your most recent post.

I have no comment on the government's involvement in the labour relations field, as that is irrelevant to the issue before us in these proceedings.

Regarding BFOR, the July decision is currently under judicial review on at least ten points of law, the most significant being that the Tribunal member who rendered the decision stated that the "purpose" of Air Canada's mandatory retirement policy was "melding the needs of the company with the collective rights and needs of the pilots…" Not only is this purpose not the purpose that the employer pleaded before the Tribunal, but it is expressly prohibited as a justification for a BFOR defence by the SCC. (See the other posts here for the references to the case law). Compare that purpose to to the SCC requirements for the purpose, namely, "a work-related purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job."

Also compare it to the reasons provided in the August Tribunal decision on BFOR (Thwaites).

The point here is that if you don't meet the SCC requirements at the Step 1 test, you don't get to evaluate the impact on the employer at Step 3, including all of the cost implications, such as those you mention.

On a much more basic level, assuming that a Tribunal did address its mind to the ICAO purpose of the BFOR pleaded by Air Canada instead of incorrectly finding that the "legitimate purpose" of mandatory retirement provision was based on a collective agreement purpose, it is difficult to see how a Tribunal could find that ICAO restrictions that affect only pilots-in-command could form the basis of a BFOR for First Officers and Relief Pilots, who have no ICAO restrictions based on age. If it affects only pilots-in-command, what justification is there for terminating everyone's employment?

So, that will play out in the Federal Court, as you say. But one thing that you should recognize is that once a decision is rendered by the Federal Court, it is law, unless and until it is overturned by the Court. So if the Federal Court disallows the BFOR defence in Vilven-Kelly, as the Tribunal did in Thwaites, the case does not have to get to the SCC before pilots are reinstated.

15(1)(a), BFOR, and 15(1)(c), normal age of retirement and the constitutionality thereof are still before the courts. The constitutionality issue is before the Federal Court of Appeal, the last stop before the SCC, with the hearing to take place on November 22nd. Decision expected by late February.

Because the BFOR issue has resulted in two polar opposite decisions by the Tribunal, the issue, in law, is termed a "live issue." But BFOR has been disallowed for all 70 Thwaites complainants, so if the Charter decision is upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal, there will be no impediment to many of those pilots being reinstated.

We are claiming no outright victory. What we are saying is that the BFOR issue was correctly decided by the Thwaites decision, and the repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption, that will come into effect by next December, will spell the end of the age 60 limit at Air Canada.

The repeal legislation is separate from the litigation. The repeal is prospective, while the litigation is retrospective. The repeal will apply to all pilots whose scheduled termination of employment occurs after the coming into force of the repeal next December. All others will be forced to deal with their complaints through the Tribunal process, including those whose employment has yet to be terminated before December, 2012.

[Rockie]

Perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us on a few questions that I have:

Mr. Hall has been "enlightening" people for years with a non-emotional relaying of the facts as they occur. All that's required is for you to listen. Afterall what have you actually learned from ACPA or the many unqualified and uninformed opinions on the ..'s forum?

In addition to that he has from the beginning been consistently and steadfastly forthright on how destructive this would turn out for the pilot group if they didn't manage the change rather than fight it. As counsel for the flypast60 group he didn't have to say a word, but yet he has never given up trying to save the pilots from themselves. His constant appeals to realistically address this change in societal values fell on utterly deaf ears and closed minds, and resulted only in his vilification. And here we are today...

It's no surprise that this is turning out badly for ACPA and the pilots. Our refusal over the years to see the writing on the wall and deal with it realistically excludes us from having any control, or even a small degree of influence over how this change is implemented. More significantly we will have to contend with a large and steadily increasing number of pilots being reinstated to their original place on the seniority list and all the chaos that entails. The monetary cost alone of this fiasco is already very high, but we haven't begun to see the worst of it. Naturally everyone will blame the flypast60 group especially those most effected. But the real blame rests solely with us and our deliberate decision to fight this to the end rather than adapt and manage it.

[turbo-beaver]

Raymond:

Many thanks for all your work and your informative, balanced approach and wisdom in your efforts to educate the group. But, any idea when this is going to end?

While Rockie was typing out his posts last night, I was having the shit kicked out of me on a Skytrain platform and I can't take this mitigation anymore. I got punched directly over my heart by a 25 y.o. muscle bound tattooed gangbanger that was on his way to sell some drugs downtown at the Occupy Vancouver camp out. I guess in my 33 years at Air Canada, my heart had been broken too many times, because it didn't hurt, and I am still able, at 65, to get off my ass and get to work. He wound up walking downtown though. I'm not scared of a drug dealer that has to take Skytrain to work anyhow. Talk about a loser. He shouldent have asked me to "lick his balls", because that reminded me what my job on the 777 will entail so the guys will drink , eat, and talk to me when I get back, and I wouldent mind getting the occasional leg.

And I have to tell you......these sim sessions on driving these trains, no matter how hard I try, it just ain't like flying nor as much fun. One thing though, there are lots of girls on these trains. And they all want to come up and talk to you.

For those folks that are advocating cog screen testing for us old bastards.......you are right. I would agree to that as long as it starts at 45, the same age as the 6 month medicals start I think. After all, last month on my recertification, I only got a 99% average on the written and practical testing. I could have done better but at the same time I was studying for my latest 340 ride which I passed with flying colours. The check pilot that did my ride, as well as the Transport inspector commented on my CRM. Maybe when I come back they should send me out with Dave as his posts sort of allude to the fact that he is losing it badly.......or maybe he was just into the Bombay Sapphire a little when he wrote that post. Regardless, it did hit a sort of new low, in thinking I would give two hoots if he ever talked to me, ate with me, or rode in the same crew van.

Anyhow, Raymond, again, thank you for all your informative posts. My son, is in law school, partly thanks to you. He is saving labour law for his last year, next year.

Cheers

[whipline]

Every Air Canada Pilot wants FlyPast60 to be implemented, they just don't want it to come into effect until they themselves turn Sixty. This is for obvious reasons, those who just turn Sixty as the rules change over will be the "big winners". So we get lots of hypocritical drivel from the Pilot group who are just hoping to put this off until they themselves can be the "big winners". But eventually the change will come. In the meantime ACPA will have frittered away an excellent bargaining chip. The loss to ACPA Pilots will never show up in any balance sheet, just know that it is huge.

So this is about individual greed. Nice!!

[Rockie]

Call it whatever you want, but apply it to both sides of this issue or not at all.

The bottom line is mandatory retirement is age discriminatory and the federal government is about to catch up with the rest of the country in calling a spade a spade. While Air Canada pilots have used up all their time levelling accusations of greed and denigrating their own, the train has left the station leaving them behind as usual.

Congratulations on another fine example of intelligent assessment and planning by the Air Canada pilots.

[ahramin]

Here's a quote from the ALPA President on the FAA mandatory retirement age:

Regarding Age 65: in 2007, an internal, national survey of ALPA members found that a majority of the membership supported raising the mandatory retirement age to mirror the ICAO standard. Like it or not, the FAA mandatory retirement age was going to change, but ALPA’s influence ensured that the new rule protected our members to the greatest extent possible. I realize some of our members remain frustrated by this change; however, the past is the past. We must now move forward together to keep ours the best career there is.

[merlin]

The world is in a constant state of change, whether it be retirement age, LCC, etc. You better change with it or you WILL become extinct!

The Pilots and F/A's at AC better wake up, for that matter the management as well. A lot more success would be had by all if the company started to work together like a team.

[Rockie]

A lot more success would be had by all if the company started to work together like a team.

Truer words were never spoken.

[Rockie]

Finally, a little long overdue honesty from ACPA (thanks TL). In an innocuous little posting last weekend on the ..'s forum one of the new age60 committee members has for the first time acknowledged the "enormous potential of liability" should ACPA lose.

No one has asked how enormous yet, or even recognized that the admission was made.

[vic777]

So this is about individual greed. Nice!!

I see no problem with that assessment, I would describe it in a broader way however, and I would argue that you are just as greedy as the next guy.

[vic777]

acknowledged the "enormous potential of liability" should ACPA lose.

Is it possible for the Pilots to "opt out" of ACPA and form another UNION, perhaps join ALPA, in order to avoid paying these penalties? Can new hires refuse to join ACPA and perhaps join ALPA?

[Rockie]

Is it possible for the Pilots to "opt out" of ACPA and form another UNION, perhaps join ALPA, in order to avoid paying these penalties?

Air Canada pilots can certainly hold a de-certification vote and go with any labour organization they want, but I doubt very much they can avoid the liability. And why would they want to? Whatever liability accrues as a result of decisions the Air Canada pilots made (and you can be sure ACPA will emphatically state they were only acting in accordance with the pilot's wishes) it would be the height of scumbaggery in my opinion to then skulk away from that responsibility like thieves in the night. Air Canada pilots are responsible for their bills whatever their representation.

Can new hires refuse to join ACPA and perhaps join ALPA?

They can refuse to join ACPA but it won't make any difference. ACPA is the sole certified bargaining agent representing ALL Air Canada pilots whether they are members or not. It's that sole legal right and privilege that necessitates the duty of fair representation legislation that ACPA is flagrantly ignoring. ACPA represents us whether we as an individual want them to or not, and in return they have to fairly represent every individual whether they want to or not.

It's the law.

[whipline]

Vic, I don't work at AC and have no aspirations to. From the outside looking in I don't see a human rights violation, all I see is greed, which you just confirmed. Nice attempt on the deflect though.

Could ACPA and the company change the pension to read "the last five years" instead of "your best 5 years?"

[vic777]

I don't see a human rights violation, all I see is greed

You're on the losing side in this debate whipline.

[accumulous]

Vic, I don't work at AC and have no aspirations to. From the outside looking in I don't see a human rights violation, all I see is greed, which you just confirmed. Nice attempt on the deflect though.

Could ACPA and the company change the pension to read "the last five years" instead of "your best 5 years?"

Good point about the pension – by the way the greed thing is getting a bit stale – last time anybody checked, there wasn’t one single solitary pilot on the entire North American continent who was working for free.

So unless you’re working for dick or donating a hundred percent of your income to some charitable organization like ‘Save AC Pilots From Themselves’, which is covered under ‘Special Assessments’, remuneration for employment is pretty much a standard common denominator, it’s a given, so the greed argument is the reddest of herrings. It’s like throwing crap at the mirror. Strange that the only parties using the ‘greed’ word are on the gainfully employed side of the fence.

For 200 Complainants and climbing, and the entire contingent of 3000 AC pilots who are about to have the upper end of their careers set free by Parliament in Ottawa, the issue is about to cover the whole collective mass.

A couple of equipment bids from now, everybody is on the same side of the fence. Once the music stops on this great big discrimination Gong Show, in about three weeks time, and everybody scrambles for a chair amid all the screaming and yelling, pushing, shoving, and herring flinging, everybody’s on the same page.

So yes it would be a good time to look at options like rejigging the pension parameters, early retirement incentives, etc., if you want to keep on exterminating the senior pilots, which, and you won’t find this on any Cog test, ultimately covers everybody. Replacing one form of discrimination with another one won’t work, so you pretty much have to call the folks who make the laws and see if it’s still okay to smoke your own senior pilots or should everybody maybe grow up.

Right now about 2900 pilots on the list can’t make the max pension on years of service which is why they’re earmarking millions of their income to prevent themselves from ever reaching that parameter, which as we already know is the undisputed definition of insanity.

So somehow you have to get from that page, limping, to the page the rest of the continent has been on since the dinosaurs got tanked by the big meteor.

Perhaps a good place to start looking would be with those greedy bastards over at Jazz and Westjet. They punted the Age 60 barrier into the dumpster way back in 2002 – that’s oh, about a decade ago. Those greedy sons of bitches got it into their thick skulls that all they had to do was get together, sign a piece of paper, and work to their hearts content, opening up the bid lists to infinity, raise their future earning game by about a gazillion percent, and permanently solve that problem of not having enough years of service.

On the other side of the ledger us Neanderthals at AC simultaneously decided to pay big bucks to try to force ourselves to have to apply to Jazz and WestJet for a job at age 60. The only part we screwed up was the little thing about having to go back to the bottom of the list at those other carriers. Ten years hence, we’re just now starting to see a little glimmer of why the rest of the continent has been on the correct page all these years.

So yes, asking a question about how to adjust the pension parameters is a good start. And it’s legal.

[29chev]

accumulous you said

Jazz and Westjet

get together, sign a piece of paper, and work to their hearts content, opening up the bid lists to infinity, raise their future earning game by about a gazillion percent, and permanently solve that problem of not having enough years of service.

I thought both those companys had to retire at 65??? I could be wrong! But if I'm right 65 is a long way from infinity....
Just saying
29Chev

[Rockie]

From the outside looking in I don't see a human rights violation,

Neither do most of the Air Canada pilots unable to think far enough into the future to the day they turn 60. What they still haven't gotten into their heads even after all these years is that the rest of Canada does. If they had the ability to look even a few years into the future it would have been obvious to them that mandatory retirement was gasping its last breath right here at Air Canada, and that while they still had some time they should get ready for the change.

Alas, even though many people tried to show them what was coming they refused to see it.