Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

[Ah_yeah]

Now, if he could only figure out who the 1382 were so he could go after them for additional damages.

[Bored]

What was the question in IVR 72? If I recall it wasn't a call to defend mandatory retirement to the bitter end.

[777longhaul]

You can go onto the acpa site, and look up the IVR vote, assuming you are an AC pilot with acpa website access.

[duranium]

regardless, few thousands bucks more or less, these guys are retiring with more net income then majority of line captains are taking home today in Canada.

I said it before and I say it today again....greed of the humanity is what will bring the end of our civilization. The "democratic" rights of minorities are slowly chocking the democratically established rights of the majority, but the ones in power don't care, as long as it doesn't affect them...

Why can your side of the equation not stop from inventing new ways for us readers to not believe you? You write '' regardless, few thousands bucks more or less''. You start off by brushing aside with your regardless the importance of the inaccuracy then compound it with the importance of the sum of this same inaccuracy. A few thousand bucks is no small change for most income earners, may I suggest. You must suspect that more than a few readers on this site can and will checks the veracity of what is written but there you go trying to snow us under with creative prose.

Facts sells ideas not lies, try it sometimes, then we will consider believing you.

As for the second part of your post about minorities chocking majority rights, you should read the news about a certain Vladimir Putin's medlings in Ukrane. That could slightly change your opinion on the goings on in certain parts of the world when muscle replaces rights

[duranium]

Now, if he could only figure out who the 1382 were so he could go after them for additional damages.

I would presume that the way things are going for one side, that could be forthcoming in the not too distant future ... but, one never knows for certain untill the hammer falls. Stay tuned for the next chapters in this saga

[Mig29]

creative prose??? Give me a freaking break Duranium

What do you think this is other then forum where your opinion is just that, an opinion. Just like mine. As for the money, I didn't quote any specific amounts, but I know how much AC guys make vs other airlines, those are not opinions but its out there in the public. So when you consider the actual pension potential of AC guys, I just can't feel sorry for those few that chose to stay in order to pay "their bills and feed their family". Many pilots in Canada can only wish they had the earning potential and stability that AC provided to them. That's a fact.

As for your Ukrainian topic, I didn't want to get in this discussion as the moderators may get upset As much as I'm media skeptic, I (choose to) have access to a lot more then your typical copy cats of Western media. Including European, Russian, Asian and Middle Eastern media. You speak of Putin's meddling.....have you seen how the "pro-democratic" protesters savagely beat the crap of Ukrainian police for almost 3 months?? In the name of democracy??? If this was Canada or US, those protesters would be shot dead point blank! You can bet your life on this!

Open up your eyes my friend....

[777longhaul]

Fanblade

Your questions:

A large enough cross section participated for a reasonable individual to determine that 75%, +/- a small margin of error, were in favor of maintaining the practice.

No one with any credibility, would read the vote otherwise while trying to determine support for either direction.

Why exactly are you trying redifine the meaning of the results anyway? What relevance does that have now?



My answers:

It was not a large cross section, large implies more than the 44% of the whole group. That was not large. When there is LESS than 50% that voted NO, that is not a majority vote. There is NO MANDATE to continue to fight this issue, way back then, and now.

acpa, did not get the majority vote that it was after. They never ever did. So the continued fight, that ONLY acpa is doing, as the other unions at AC saw what was wrong with the situation, and accepted their members back, after a grievance was filed and ruled upon. Some, members came back without grievances being filed. Wow-eh! ONLY acpa refused to allow, (file a grievance) for the active pilots who were not yet retired. These were pilots who were in good standing with the union, and were paying max union dues.

The credibility to read the IVR vote, is very simple, a yes or no answer. DID acpa GET A MAJORITY NO VOTE, .....NO IS THE ANSWER.

I am not redefining the meaning of the results. That cant be done by anyone. The results, speak, clearly for themselves.

The purpose of discussing this issue, is simple, many on this forum, do not know about the actual IVR vote, and that acpa did not get a majority vote, yet, they have spent over a million dollars fighting this issue, and they continue to do so, even, though, all the other unions at AC have changed their stance, and accepted their members back. So.....maybe they are right, and all the others are wrong, the courts will decide. So the fight continues, with all the other unions at AC doing a totally different dance than acpa. The courts will decide, regardless.

[accumulous]

Fanblade

Your questions:

A large enough cross section participated for a reasonable individual to determine that 75%, +/- a small margin of error, were in favor of maintaining the practice.

No one with any credibility, would read the vote otherwise while trying to determine support for either direction.

Why exactly are you trying redifine the meaning of the results anyway? What relevance does that have now?



My answers:

It was not a large cross section, large implies more than the 44% of the whole group. That was not large. When there is LESS than 50% that voted NO, that is not a majority vote. There is NO MANDATE to continue to fight this issue, way back then, and now.

acpa, did not get the majority vote that it was after. They never ever did. So the continued fight, that ONLY acpa is doing, as the other unions at AC saw what was wrong with the situation, and accepted their members back, after a grievance was filed and ruled upon. Some, members came back without grievances being filed. Wow-eh! ONLY acpa refused to allow, (file a grievance) for the active pilots who were not yet retired. These were pilots who were in good standing with the union, and were paying max union dues.

The credibility to read the IVR vote, is very simple, a yes or no answer. DID acpa GET A MAJORITY NO VOTE, .....NO IS THE ANSWER.

I am not redefining the meaning of the results. That cant be done by anyone. The results, speak, clearly for themselves.

The purpose of discussing this issue, is simple, many on this forum, do not know about the actual IVR vote, and that acpa did not get a majority vote, yet, they have spent over a million dollars fighting this issue, and they continue to do so, even, though, all the other unions at AC have changed their stance, and accepted their members back. So.....maybe they are right, and all the others are wrong, the courts will decide. So the fight continues, with all the other unions at AC doing a totally different dance than acpa. The courts will decide, regardless.

A lot of confusion about the mysteries of the vote was left twisting in the wind because the results of the 'vote', were characterized both in-house and right across the country, in a multitude of venues, namely every major piece of newsprint, as representing an 'OVERWHELMING' majority, and in some papers as a 'VAST, OVERWHELMING' majority.

Was the majority really big? Well it was bigger than just big. It was Vast, and not only that, it was downright Overwhelming.

So out of 3083 eligible voters, the 1701 (ONE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED AND ONE) pilots, the REAL MAJORITY of pilots, a number that likely exceeded the combined total of all pilots in the Montreal, Vancouver, and Winnipeg bases combined, who either did not vote or voted against the scheme, must have entered a transcendental state of cross-eyed delirium when they were told that a vast, overwhelming majority of pilots, actually, every pilot, was about to cough up several million in legal fees, and unbeknownst to them, several hundred million in windfall gains to the Corporation, and who knows how many more millions if the only group of pilots in the entire nation pursuing such a scheme, were to get convicted of discrimination.

If you have a huge agenda, you will need mega-funding. Get some numbers, blow them up in the press until they're just downright overwhelming, and then get all your colleagues to fork it out. Trust us, we know what we're doing.

[Fanblade]

777longhaul,

This is way before my time and is now infact irrelevant. And thanks for the explanation why.

You could poll a much much smaller group on a question and be reasonably sure, within a fairly small margin of error, the groups opinion. The more people polled the smaller the margin of error gets. Polling more than 50% of the pilot group leaves a very small margin of error.

I understand your explanation but it doesn't hold water. It is clear from the vote that 75% of ACPA pilots, within a small margin of error, wanted a specific direction taken. No one with any kind of statistical back ground would interpret it any other way.

[ahramin]

I am not an AC pilot.

Fanblade, was this a poll? It sounds like it was a vote that everyone was open to vote to. If so then that's different from a poll of a random section of a population. Yes you can get results from random polls that show the opinion of a group, but it has to be random. There is nothing random about opening up a vote to everyone and only counting the ones who care enough about the issue to vote on it.

[MackTheKnife]

What was the question in IVR 72? If I recall it wasn't a call to defend mandatory retirement to the bitter end.

The fix was in on this vote long before it ever saw the light of day. The MEC sat down and decided the outcome well before it was presented to the membership.

Instead of taking a methodical/ logical stance on such an important issue, the MEC worded the vote biased in their favor. I can't remember the exact words but it went something like,

" Do you support the MECs position of maintaining Age 60 retirement."

Right off the bat they were guaranteed almost every junior vote and every vote from those who are incapable of thinking for themselves and always go along just because its the easy way out. In most organizations there are always the apathetic ones who could care less and never vote regardless of the issue, so they could count on that % as well.

For a truly unbiased decision they should have put all the facts on the table pro and con and asked the group to decide the issue and NOT try to sway the vote to an outcome the MEC pre-determined.

MTK

[accumulous]

What was the question in IVR 72? If I recall it wasn't a call to defend mandatory retirement to the bitter end.

The fix was in on this vote long before it ever saw the light of day. The MEC sat down and decided the outcome well before it was presented to the membership.

Instead of taking a methodical/ logical stance on such an important issue, the MEC worded the vote biased in their favor. I can't remember the exact words but it went something like,

" Do you support the MECs position of maintaining Age 60 retirement."

Right off the bat they were guaranteed almost every junior vote and every vote from those who are incapable of thinking for themselves and always go along just because its the easy way out. In most organizations there are always the apathetic ones who could care less and never vote regardless of the issue, so they could count on that % as well.

For a truly unbiased decision they should have put all the facts on the table pro and con and asked the group to decide the issue and NOT try to sway the vote to an outcome the MEC pre-determined.

MTK[/quote


If that's the case then the vote had ZERO validity. Once you introduce any one of a number of biases, your validity is automatically zilch.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics

[Doug Moore]

"For a truly unbiased decision they should have put all the facts on the table pro and con and asked the group to decide the issue and NOT try to sway the vote to an outcome the MEC pre-determined."

ACPA and its "grassroots" membership always approached the FP60 issue as if it was a "majority rules" issue. In my view, that was the wrong approach to take and events have since shown that to be true. I wrote the following a few years ago: http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 56#p667956

Having silently followed the discussions here in the years that have followed, it appears that little has changed with AK-PAW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AWjzCRC174&feature=fvsr

Cheers,

Doug

[Rockie]

This is what the vote question said when it was conducted in October 2006. The MEC had already made their decision without any pro/con explanation to the pilot group, no chance to adequately understand the issue as it stood then or was likely to effect them in the future, and no feedback from the pilot group except the results of this vote that were ill-informed and underwhelming to say the least. Plus none of the over 1000 pilots hired since then have been given any opportunity to express their opinion on the matter.

"QUESTION:

Do you support the MEC’s position to maintain the
Age 60 retirement provisions?

FOR YES PRESS (01) FOR NO PRESS (02)"

[MackTheKnife]

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 56#p667956

For those who happened to miss this link that Doug posted, it is well worth the read. I took the liberty of copying it here in full.

MTK




"I posted the following comments on another forum sometime in late 2006: Given that age 60 mandatory retirement is such a contentious issue amongst the pilot group; and given that age discrimination (perceived or not) is a "legal" issue as opposed to a "majority rules" issue; and given that 458 ACPA members (approx 25% of those that voted) voted against the MEC's position "supporting the current mandatory age 60 retirement provisions as stated in pilots' pension plans"; and given that ACPA has a duty to fairly represent all of its members; and given that no one wants to see ACPA exposed to any financial liability as a result of the outcome of these proceedings; an interested observer might ask the question: why is ACPA, through its Age 60 Committee, only prepared (it would appear) to represent one side of this controversial issue to the convening authorities?

If ACPA wishes to claim that it truly and fairly represents all of its members then it must be seen to be remaining neutral in what in this case is essentially a "legal" dispute. And in allying itself with the "legal" as opposed to the "majority rules" sentiment, perhaps it might minimize its exposure to financial liability by being able to claim that it has not taken sides. So how does ACPA represent all of its members and at the same time, remain neutral?

I throw this out for discussion: Reconstitute the Age 60 Committee into two committees, one committee pro and the other con - working independently of each other. In any presentations before the convening authorities, the two committees would appear as one, but with equal time given to both sides to present their arguments. We all must understand that this issue will be decided by a third party and I believe we as an Association would present ourselves as a more mature, credible, not to mention professional group if we were to conduct ourselves in a fashion where we acknowledged the division within our group and presented both sides of the argument.

I appreciate that Vilven et al will be presenting their side, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that there is a long standing division of opinion amongst us on mandatory retirement and we, as a unified group of professional pilots, are seeking a resolution to this matter that respects and conforms to the current laws of the land.

End of the 2006 posting.


Well, that rough idea survived about as long as an ice cube dropped into a pot of boiling water – with some suggesting that perhaps it should be the writer and not the ice cube that belonged in the hot water. In my view, this mandatory retirement issue is one that truly represents the Achilles Heel of a “grassroots” organization, in that it has demonstrated that the grassroots are not a power unto themselves.

Our mandatory retirement provisions were put in place over a half-century ago, in a different time when life expectancy was lower than today, when retirement was offered as a reward for long and loyal service, and when flying itself was a much more onerous and gruelling profession. And at a time as well when the term “age discrimination” was simply a part of the social fabric. Remember when AC wouldn’t hire beyond a certain age (28)? Remember when CP assigned course seniority numbers on the basis of age (oldest most senior)? Remember when F/A’s wouldn’t be hired unless they were single? I do. Such exclusionary restrictions gradually went the way of the Dodo bird because people protested and ultimately caused new law to be introduced that enshrines the rights of the individual. The winds of change continue to blow today despite, or more accurately, in spite of those who might wish differently.

I am in agreement with Iain’s point of view on “collective bargaining in a democracy” – to a point. This age-mandated issue has two distinct elements – an age-based element (the human rights issue) and a retirement element (the collective contractual issue). The real “issue” is the conflict between the two. The Collective Agreement (the contractual issue) has its emphasis placed upon the will of the “collective”, i.e., the majority, whereas a human rights issue has its emphasis placed upon the individual. I expect the legal community will determine in the end whether or not, in the matter of mandatory retirement based on age, one trumps the other; the obvious problem for the collective (in my view) being that democracy within a collective is sometimes akin to a vote taken between two wolves and a lamb in the matter of what they’ll have for dinner.

ACPA has failed – and in my view continues to fail - to grasp that age-based retirement is no longer just another working condition to be agreed by a majority vote of the membership and then negotiated with the employer, like wages or DH in Business Class. Forced retirement for some people is akin to constructive dismissal, and this is not just an Air Canada issue, it has been happening in virtually every industry in the country. Because many workers from many industries complain about mandatory retirement, the laws of the land have been changing, and continue to change with respect to forced retirement. The writing has been on the proverbial wall for years and yet ACPA either didn’t see this or worse, felt it was powerful enough to fight it. In any event, the law will determine which rights prevail, the rights of the wolves or the rights of the lamb.

Much has been made of pilots getting to the top of the list by virtue of those ahead of them having already retired at 60. And now, horror of horrors, someone wants to change the rules in order to enjoy the fruits of seniority that has been achieved purely as a result of others retiring before them. This change has been coming for a long time – and it has to happen sometime. I can remember senior pilots fighting mandatory retirement back in the 1980’s – and they lost. Others after them also fought and lost. There has always been someone willing to take up the fight and when mandatory retirement based on age is finally relegated to the history books then yes, the lay of the land will have changed. Just as when we were hired, timing is everything – and none of us has control over timing.

Mandatory retirement, however, has not been the sole determinant of advancement. I do know that pilots quit, pilots get fired, pilots get sick, pilots die and pilots do retire early. In terms of career progression, yes, we all benefited from forced retirement – but progression on the backs of those force-retired doesn’t make it right. When mandatory retirement is expunged pilots will still quit, pilots will still get fired, pilots will still get sick, pilots will still die and pilots will still retire – some earlier, some later, but everybody will be in lock-step on this same, albeit new ladder. When the dust settles, it will not be the end of the world, as we know it.

“Fly until you die.” That’s a nice catchy phrase but hardly reflective, in my view, of the aspirations of the pilots who are fighting mandatory retirement. We have no data from which to predict what will happen but I suspect that the very large majority of those who wish to fly past 60 will do so only until the novelty wears off - and then they will prepare for when they want to retire – and I suspect the overwhelming majority will want to retire as opposed to those who might want to die in the seat. Will there be those who will hang in there until removed due to medical problems, incompetence or death? Yes, there will always be birds of that feather but they will be a rare bird indeed. Instead, think about those who, given the opportunity in the past, have chosen early retirement prior to 60. There have always been, and there always will be guys who want to go early, particularly absent any early retirement penalty. This fly till you die scare tactic is a red herring thrown out in the midst of the hysteria of those who see their career grinding to a halt. Why not concentrate on negotiating an environment amenable both to those who want to leave early as well as to those desirous of going past 60? Win-Win.

I am drawn to this discussion simply due to its debatable nature, as it is a completely academic one for me - I’ve been retired almost 3 years now and I’m not part of the FP60 group. I do, however, support the concept of the abolition of mandatory retirement based on age, as I suspect do many others - well, at least 458 anyway. This is a toxic and divisive issue such that very few are willing to publicly engage out of fear that they will be verbally accosted and/or ostracized. I can’t say as I blame them. We are such a wonderfully dysfunctional group when it comes to seniority and anything that affects it!

It will be interesting to see how many of those who today so vigorously defend retirement at 60 will themselves “walk the talk” when they flip that page in the calendar that says: “Hello 60”. "

[777longhaul]

An excellent post by Doug, and this is a very interesting post just after Doug's post way back then, from Raymond Hall.

At one time,......a long time ago, acpa, was actually going to represent its members, and go to grievance, arbitration, for a pilot, in good standing, paying union dues, but then....the current day MEC, decided to reverse course, and fight the issue. And, ever since that day....the entire revolving MEC's, have fought this issue, without a unified majority acpa membership mandate to do so, no matter what the outcome. Amazing, how the flip flop happened, and we have now all spent millions on the MEC's decision(s).

Rockie pointed out, that aprx. 1000 pilots have been hired since then, and they did not have any say in the vote, yet, they are paying for the court battle, and will pay further into the future for court battles, and other possible outcomes.

Quote from Raymond Hall: (underline and bold my addition to the quote)

In March, 2006, a YVR-based Captain requested ACPA to file a grievance on his behalf with respect to his impending mandatory retirement. The YVR ACPA Grievance Committee Chair consequently wrote a letter to senior Flight Operations management at Air Canada advising of the grievance. The Captain was provided with a copy of that letter. It included the following paragraph:

"This grievance seeks an interpretation as to whether mandatory retirement at age 60 violates the ACPA Collective Agreement and/or the Canadian Human Rights Act. ACPA is currently investigating this issue. Depending on the outcome of its investigation, ACPA may take a position that differs from the position of Captain XXXXXXXXX. If that turns out to be the case, ACPA will arrange independent counsel to represent him at arbitration."
end posting quote.

Just think, this was back in 2006.

[Fanblade]

I am not an AC pilot.

Fanblade, was this a poll? It sounds like it was a vote that everyone was open to vote to. If so then that's different from a poll of a random section of a population. Yes you can get results from random polls that show the opinion of a group, but it has to be random. There is nothing random about opening up a vote to everyone and only counting the ones who care enough about the issue to vote on it.

Ahramin,

I wasn't expecting someone who actually knew what they were talking about on this forum.

Your right of course.

I wasn't an AC pilot when this vote took place either. But think about it. 60% of the group voted. Do you believe a realistic mandate can't be extracted from that?

I would say common sense says yes. This whole ACPA didn't have a mandate stuff is absurd.

Again why is this issue important to you guys? Is it about liability? Now you want money from me as well? If ACPA has to pay it will include every ACPA member currently and some to come.

These kinds of arguments are absurd. But the fact they are attempting to make them is revolting.

No wonder this never got solved amicably.

[accumulous]

I am not an AC pilot.

Fanblade, was this a poll? It sounds like it was a vote that everyone was open to vote to. If so then that's different from a poll of a random section of a population. Yes you can get results from random polls that show the opinion of a group, but it has to be random. There is nothing random about opening up a vote to everyone and only counting the ones who care enough about the issue to vote on it.

Ahramin,

I wasn't expecting someone who actually knew what they were talking about on this forum.

Your right of course.

I wasn't an AC pilot when this vote took place either. But think about it. 60% of the group voted. Do you believe a realistic mandate can't be extracted from that?

I would say common sense says yes. This whole ACPA didn't have a mandate stuff is absurd.

Again why is this issue important to you guys? Is it about liability? Now you want money from me as well? If ACPA has to pay it will include every ACPA member currently and some to come.

These kinds of arguments are absurd. But the fact they are attempting to make them is revolting.

No wonder this never got solved amicably.

Lots of good facts coming out, which begs a lot of interesting questions. Not pertaining to 200 pilots, but pertaining to 1701 pilots.

The number of pilots who voted against the 'scheme' approached the size of the entire Vancouver base.
The number of pilots who did not vote and who voted against the 'scheme' was over 30 percent MORE pilots than the ENTIRE population of the Montreal, Winnipeg, and Vancouver bases COMBINED, and was the clear majority.

If the information posted elsewhere is correct, it appears that the vote was rigged, i.e., it was prefaced with the preferred way to vote which in statistical terms renders the vote in any scientific circle as null, that is, it has ZERO validity.

On the basis of that 'vote', an ongoing plethora of cash has been extracted from over 3000 pilots, including the majority who either did not vote or who voted against it.

In scientific research, if you skew a vote or a poll, it gets the round file, it doesn't pass the light of day. You get a bunch of tenured people looking over their glasses at you as they put a big capital 'F' at the top of your paper, and then they circle it in red. That's a Fail.

It's fairly benign though, if the result doesn't cost anything.

But what is the implication of skewing a vote and then using the results to extract millions in cash from over 3000 pilots, including the MAJORITY who either voted against the 'scheme' or who did not vote.

On that basis, do the majority of the pilots, 1701, have the right to pursue a REFUND from the group that put the 'scheme' together?

[Rockie]

Again why is this issue important to you guys? Is it about liability? Now you want money from me as well? If ACPA has to pay it will include every ACPA member currently and some to come.These kinds of arguments are absurd. But the fact they are attempting to make them is revolting.

Since this issue reared it's very ugly head the fp60 pilots and legal team have been imploring ACPA and the pilot group to not only save themselves the expense of fighting an unwinnable fight, but spare the future pilots from bearing the cost of the inevitable loss. They have also been trying to get ACPA and the pilot group to recognize the benefits of embracing this change early and using it to extract some of the money Air Canada would be saving as a result for the pilot group.

All of this fell on completely deaf ears.

If you want to characterize something as revolting you should perhaps turn your attention to the unbelievable stupidity that put you in this position in the first place.

I'm not unsympathetic to the pilots hired since 2006 who have to pay for this fiasco, but put the blame for it where it belongs.

[Fanblade]

Rockie,

Blame I can accept. Not happy if I have to pay but it is what it is.

I'm not worried about ACPA's liability from the vote. No one will buy into this BS. What I find frighting is that it is being pursued in the first place. Its revolting.