Happy Birthday, You're Fired!!

[MackTheKnife]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/07/opinion/o ... rement-age




Title edited. Picky Picky Picky

[ogopogo]

You're.

[av8ts]

ur

[razorblade]

ur

[Rockie]

Any comment on the subject of the article and essence of this issue beyond juvenile barbs at some spelling?

Someday believe or not this will matter to you despite the acute shortsightedness many people currently suffer from.

[HeadingAltitudeSpeed]

Someday believe or not this will matter to you despite the acute shortsightedness many people currently suffer from.

I thought the acute shortsightedness is a result of age....

Sorry, couldn't help myself

[Rockie]

I thought the acute shortsightedness is a result of age....

No, you're thinking of acute short stamina. Totally different.

[TheStig]

Okay Rockie, I'll add my 2 cents...it's time to move on. This CNN story is 'yesterdays news' as it applies to Air Canada pilots. A line was drawn in the sand and only those really close to being on the right side of the line won. Some were on the wrong side, while others (about 1500 or so) are on the right side of the line but too far away from it to consider it much of a victory. Those on the 'too old' side of the line were fighting to draw it at the place most beneficial to themselves, much like those on the other side of the argument. Anybody flying at Air Canada not born between December 1, 1952 and say…1960 has lost, those who were can now enjoy a few more years at the top without fear of being forced to start collecting their pensions the month after they turn 60. This horse has been dead for months, keep beating if you'd like though.

[Rockie]

Every time there is a change regardless what it is some people benefit and some don't, even if the change is necessary like this one was. As well some people are unable to see change as beneficial to them even though it is. For instance the change at Air Canada is hurting me in the short term probably more than it's hurting you Stig, but in the long term it's beneficial to all of us and that's why it was necessary. I can see past the short term pain to the long term gain, you and regretfully many others still can't.

However I wasn't referring to Air Canada at all because as you say it's a dead horse here. Well that's not entirely correct either, there are still legal challenges facing the pilots due to earlier choices we made that are unresolved, so that horse is still very much alive. It is an ongoing societal issue as well because as the article points out there are still people forced into retirement for no reason other than their age even within Canada.

[ikarus]

Okay Rockie, I'll add my 2 cents...it's time to move on. This CNN story is 'yesterdays news' as it applies to Air Canada pilots. A line was drawn in the sand and only those really close to being on the right side of the line won. Some were on the wrong side, while others (about 1500 or so) are on the right side of the line but too far away from it to consider it much of a victory. Those on the 'too old' side of the line were fighting to draw it at the place most beneficial to themselves, much like those on the other side of the argument. Anybody flying at Air Canada not born between December 1, 1952 and say…1960 has lost, those who were can now enjoy a few more years at the top without fear of being forced to start collecting their pensions the month after they turn 60. This horse has been dead for months, keep beating if you'd like though.

nice put Stig!

Rockie,

do you care to elaborate on long term benefits please?

[Rockie]

Is not being forced out of your job against your will simply because you had a birthday not a good thing? I mean come on, try and project yourself into the future here and think of yourself in that position.

Aside from that if you need a more concrete answer, we already have many pilots here who have had the pension taken from them by a federal government and corporate executive who wouldn't dream of giving up theirs. In fact no pilot hired at AC from now on will have a pension and they will have to work as long as they can if they want anything but cat food for their dinner after retirement. Do you think the ability to work as long as they are capable might be a benefit to them?

Really, it's not that hard to think of the benefits.

[complexintentions]

Hmmm. I'm just a dumb expat with no pension (but no income tax either), but let me see if I follow the logic of this "benefit".

Since corporations are removing pensions that once enabled us to retire, we should be view it as a plus that we now have the benefit of working until we die.

Is that it?

Pardon me if I don't exactly pop the cork on the champagne.

I agree that the law had to change, as it was too crude to be fair. But the reasons behind why it was changed: greed of the demographic that desperately needed it to, corporations trying to camouflage their bankrupt pension funds, and so on...should not be defended as some noble fight for fairness. Once again the root causes are being brushed aside with a "solution" that places the burden on the workers. Hardly sound "longterm" thinking.

And the argument that is was unfair because it used an "arbitrary" number of birthdays is absurd. There are many things legally regulated using "arbitrary" ages at the other end of the spectrum, such as driving, voting, buying alcohol, age of consent. By the "unfair" argument they should all be abolished too, since not all 21 year-olds are created equal any more than not all 60 year-olds are.

As it is, with 500,000 new retirees in Canada every year for the next eight years (that's over 10% of the population!), allowing the top end of the workforce - which has arguably already creamed the very best jobs and perks over the last 30 years - to hang on even longer to their jobs is creating a lost generation of workers. There literally ARE no job for the under-25's. But at least if they ever do find employment, they'll have the legal right to work until they're dead. Good thing too, they'll have to.

[Rockie]

Hmmm. I'm just a dumb expat with no pension (but no income tax either), but let me see if I follow the logic of this "benefit".

Since corporations are removing pensions that once enabled us to retire, we should be view it as a plus that we now have the benefit of working until we die.

Is that it?

Pardon me if I don't exactly pop the cork on the champagne.

If champagne corks are to be popped you can pop it based on the fact pilots at Air Canada will no longer be age discriminated against. Something that is long overdue and certainly cause for celebrating. The changing demographics and devolving labour environment in Canada are not cause for celebration, but they are a reality and would have forced the elimination of mandatory retirement as a matter of practical necessity even if the human rights tribunal didn't.

This is quite simple really. Faced with insufficient funds to retire it is a distinct benefit to be able to continue working - essential even. Wouldn't you agree?

I agree that the law had to change, as it was too crude to be fair. But the reasons behind why it was changed: greed of the demographic that desperately needed it to, corporations trying to camouflage their bankrupt pension funds, and so on...should not be defended as some noble fight for fairness.

The human rights challenges were stand alone based on the rights principle alone, and if you recall Air Canada fought the change. Why they did that I still have not figured out since they knew as well as anyone that the change was inevitable.

And the argument that is was unfair because it used an "arbitrary" number of birthdays is absurd. There are many things legally regulated using "arbitrary" ages at the other end of the spectrum, such as driving, voting, buying alcohol, age of consent. By the "unfair" argument they should all be abolished too, since not all 21 year-olds are created equal any more than not all 60 year-olds are.

I don't totally disagree with you here. The drinking age in some provinces is 18 while in others it's 19. I don't think teenagers in Alberta are any more mature or able to handle it than those in Ontario, but for now at least it isn't a violation of human rights. If some enterprising 18 year old in Cornwall decides to fight it as a human rights violation and wins then guess what? It becomes age discriminatory. Right now it's not.

Driving and other things that have a minimum age (CPL for example) are there because society deems that the minimum age where someone is mature and responsible enough to carry out those activities. I happen to agree with it and it is not at all the same thing as forcing a capable, mature and willing adult out of their job just because they reach a certain age.

[DH772]

This is quite simple really. Faced with insufficient funds to retire it is a distinct benefit to be able to continue working - essential even. Wouldn't you agree?

Top captains making well over $200k....insufficient funds to retire......hmmmmm........ahh yes, I see what you mean......

[whipline]

I dont have any issue with someone wanting to work past 65. In the past there was a defined goal line. People worked their way up the latter accruing wage and benefits along the way all the while telling their junior colleagues some day it will be your turn. Thats what I disagree with. If you want to be "equals" indefinitely then shouldn't wages and benefits also be equal? Fair is fair right?

[Rockie]

If you want to be "equals" indefinitely then shouldn't wages and benefits also be equal? Fair is fair right?

What makes the wages less equal now since everybody can work the same length of time? And how is being discriminated against "fair"?

[whipline]

Everyone's situation is different rockie, i accept that. Again I couldn't care if someone wants to work until they take a dirt nap. Their choice. Problem is there's no more hierarchy under these conditions. At present I don't want to work until 75 because you stayed longer and limited my wage. I want the chance to finish early not late.

[Rockie]

At present I don't want to work until 75 because you stayed longer and limited my wage. I want the chance to finish early not late.

So basic human rights are less important than your career expectations.

Does that sound about right?

[Old fella]

Everyone's situation is different rockie, i accept that. Again I couldn't care if someone wants to work until they take a dirt nap. Their choice. Problem is there's no more hierarchy under these conditions. At present I don't want to work until 75 because you stayed longer and limited my wage. I want the chance to finish early not late.

I will say it again until blue in the face or really sick of me posting it (more of the latter I suspect). The vast majority of male and female stiffs (literally and figuratively) at my age (63) perhaps younger will get out if they can see themselves clear – that I do know, full stop. Those that do work and what I mean by that is continuing in their present occupation do so for varied reasons as we all know. However, I have keenly observed those older than me who are working are not in the “happy camper” ranks at all. I get into occasional verbal jousting with the full-time 68-72 yr. old workers and I love every minute telling that Monday to Sunday is all the same to me. I have been told I have no purpose in life and I appear to be bored. Funny things, these old 70 yr. fools don’t realize I have 7+ yrs. up on them – years they will never see. When they drive to work remember these words I say to them “up your ass with a liter of gas and happy fucking motoring”

[Ah_yeah]

That was beautiful Old Fella. Some guys just get it.

Rockie, I know this is your baby and we've jabbed about it a few times. I will concede with full 20/20 hindsight, that the failure was not being able to negotiate the terms of this change. For every guy that wants to be pronounced dead in Goose Bay after a diversion, there are many like me that would love to punch out early. This cannot happen now. I don't blame ACPA or the membership in it's resistance thought. So much of our effed up system is simply too entrenched to just hand-over. As another poster alluded to above, the "rights" issue was clever and sympathetic to the casual observer but this was all about a bigger global "reset" going on and those in control couldn't give a toss about our rights regardless of age.
Happy summer all and stick it to the man

[single_swine_herder]

Just for the record in this thread, not everybody that continues to work beyond the first day they qualify to retire does so because they need the money.

As difficult as it is for some posters to understand, there actually are people that enjoy doing what they're doing because it's what they've wanted to do since they were about 4 years old ...... and going to "work," isn't "work" at all.

The only exception is the time spent having to tolerate the depressing ramblings of Sad Sacks that see everything in life as a downer, the world is out to F them over, their lives are in disarray, and they expect me to be their counsellor while in the workplace.

If you don't like it and aren't willing to act professionally .... get out and do something else somewhere else instead of poisoning the workplace as surely as if you were putting Arsenic in the drinking water cooler.

I'll continue to "work" in my chosen area of interest until I feel ready to leave. If that causes those wanting my job to be anxious about what calendar date they'll get their turn in my chair .... too bad.

For those who seem to detest what they are doing and feel they are like whipped Donkeys in a third world country and screwed over, frankly I feel sorry for you.

[Rockie]

I will concede with full 20/20 hindsight, that the failure was not being able to negotiate the terms of this change.

Close, but what you've described above was a result of the failure, not the failure itself.

The real failure was our group's total lack of foresight. We failed in ethics believing our own advancement up the list was more important than an individual's right to not be discriminated against. In fact most of us still don't believe age based mandatory retirement is discriminatory. That continues to be a failure.

There are far too many others who think mandatory retirement may be discriminatory, but wanted to push as many people out the door as possible before it became legally so. In my opinion that's the biggest failure of all.

[Ah_yeah]

Rockie, I admire your altruism but give your head a shake. Raymond's victory had nothing to do with rights or discrimination. The western world is in the beginning of a big shake-up and the likes of us are not invited to the meeting.
ACPA membership in general viewed this as a sacred cow. The corp saw an opportunity for another "grab" and has decided to pad the pension numbers by penalizing "early" retirement. That hurts for many that have a life outside the uniform.

[Rockie]

Rockie, I admire your altruism but give your head a shake. Raymond's victory had nothing to do with rights or discrimination. The western world is in the beginning of a big shake-up and the likes of us are not invited to the meeting.
ACPA membership in general viewed this as a sacred cow. The corp saw an opportunity for another "grab" and has decided to pad the pension numbers by penalizing "early" retirement. That hurts for many that have a life outside the uniform.

If by "altruism" you mean I believe age based mandatory retirement to be discriminatory then you're right. It's the first question I asked myself when this issue came up and I had to determine where I sat on it ethically. That by itself would have driven my actions.

The second question I asked myself was which way was this realistically going to go now that the issue was being challenged. There has only ever been one correct and obvious answer to that, and whatever an individual's ethical leanings on this issue the sheer practicality of getting the most out of the inevitable should have dictated our response. It didn't and we're now paying the price.

I don't care about what motivates the individual's who challenged this because it doesn't matter. Our group got fixated on fighting individual people instead of looking realistically at the issue and got totally, and predictably squashed by events. The company walked away with all the marbles because we let them. Like taking candy from a baby.

[Old fella]

A few years back when a couple of us got out, our positions were back filled by a couple of chaps who has previous experience with Canada3000 amongst other places. Smart/qualified people they were and I was content to see them get opportunities as I saw myself clear and was ready to pack it all in. Others in my section of the same age saw things different(for them) and continued on working.Fair enough as well. I made the right decision for me and never did regret doing what I did.