Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

[Rockie]

You find human rights revolting?

[ahramin]

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.

Common sense isn't that common and in any case, I've never seen a proof that referenced common sense. No, I do not believe that there is any way possible to reasonably claim that a realistic mandate can be extracted from that vote. To me it should be obvious that it is ridiculous to make such a claim. There is no need to take my word for it though, if you don't trust my math stop by your local university, knock on the door of any math or science professor and ask them if they have five minutes. I'm sure they'd be happy to confirm it for you.

[Fanblade]

You find human rights revolting?

No. Human rights are sacrosanct. I find the twisting of information in an attempt at justification for specific actions or opinions troubling. Doing this for monitary gain revolting. Clear?

From my vantage point this looks like a bad divorce. Where retaliation has taken a front seat to justice.

[Fanblade]

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.

Common sense isn't that common and in any case, I've never seen a proof that referenced common sense. No, I do not believe that there is any way possible to reasonably claim that a realistic mandate can be extracted from that vote. To me it should be obvious that it is ridiculous to make such a claim. There is no need to take my word for it though, if you don't trust my math stop by your local university, knock on the door of any math or science professor and ask them if they have five minutes. I'm sure they'd be happy to confirm it for you.

Like any Business degree I too took stats. Your right this wasn't a poll. A random cross section was not used. In the case of a vote I would agree with you had the turn out been very low. This isn't the case here. The turn out is high enough to reasonably extract accuracy within a fairly small margin of error.

No one is going to punish ACPA for not having a mandate to do what they did. Your logic is farsical.

For example. How long has it been since a federal government in Canada has achieved 50%+1 mandate from all Canadian's eligible to vote?

The current government. What percentage of eligible voters, voted for them? What percentage of actual voters, voted for them?

So how come the Harper Government has a mandate? They achieved a mandate from only 38%ish of voters. Voter turn out was less than 60% of eligible voters.

Why? Because he won. That is what a vote is about. Most votes = win which = mandate.

[ahramin]

The turn out is high enough to reasonably extract accuracy within a fairly small margin of error.

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight. Your claim that my logic is farcical in regards to ACPA being punished is bizarre as I haven't said one word about ACPA being punished and have no opinion on it. I was questioning assertions like the one quoted above which someone with your education should know is false. I suggest you give your business stats professor a call and see if he agrees with your interpretation. Better yet, get out your stats book and calculate the small margin of error you claim.

It does bring up an interesting question though, why don't unions do random polls of their membership on issues like this to determine what the membership actually wants.

[Fanblade]

It does bring up an interesting question though, why don't unions do random polls of their membership on issues like this to determine what the membership actually wants.

Oh? You aren't aware they did?

For the last negots an outside company was soursed. How do i know? I got a call. Most of it wage and working condition stuff.

The poll came back in the low 80% range supporting the continuation of mandatory retirement. The vote is within 5% of the margin of error on the poll.

The vote and poll were 1-2 years apart. Not sure on actual dates.

My point being still. A vote that takes a cross section of 60% of a group is very likely to reflect the populous as a whole simply because the cross section is so large. Dispite the fact it was not random.

But again. Yes your right. The vote was a vote. The poll was a poll. One random, one not. The poll may be more accurate but since they were not conducted simultainiously. Who knows?

[accumulous]

It does bring up an interesting question though, why don't unions do random polls of their membership on issues like this to determine what the membership actually wants.

Oh? You aren't aware they did?

For the last negots an outside company was soursed. How do i know? I got a call. Most of it wage and working condition stuff.

The poll came back in the low 80% range supporting the continuation of mandatory retirement. The vote is within 5% of the margin of error on the poll.

The vote and poll were 1-2 years apart. Not sure on actual dates.

My point being still. A vote that takes a cross section of 60% of a group is very likely to reflect the populous as a whole simply because the cross section is so large. Dispite the fact it was not random.

But again. Yes your right. The vote was a vote. The poll was a poll. One random, one not. The poll may be more accurate but since they were not conducted simultainiously. Who knows?

Firstly, the vote was prefaced by the preferred method of voting and therefore, it had a statistical validity of ZERO. The Poll can't establish the validity of a scheme that was based on a vote that had a statistical validity of ZERO. It is also illegal for an employee organization to vote in favor of discrimination, aka Human Rights Act Section 10,

10. It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,
that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

There is no majority in discrimination. You can't vote even 1 black guy to the back of the crew bus with an infinite number of 'votes'. A minority of one person being discriminated against is a majority under the Human Rights Act. And you certainly can't take a vote with a statistical significance of ZERO and use that to extract millions from 1701 pilots without getting into a great big whack of trouble over it.

[Fanblade]

Firstly, the vote was prefaced by the preferred method of voting and therefore, it had a statistical validity of ZERO. The Poll can't establish the validity of a scheme that was based on a vote that had a statistical validity of ZERO.

I just don't know how to respond to this.

[Rockie]

Firstly, the vote was prefaced by the preferred method of voting and therefore, it had a statistical validity of ZERO. The Poll can't establish the validity of a scheme that was based on a vote that had a statistical validity of ZERO.

I just don't know how to respond to this.

There has never been a vote or a poll conducted where both sides of the argument were presented in a fair manner providing for an educated choice. Had there been the membership would have known that there was nothing to vote on - the law was changing and we needed to adapt. The only choice was to adapt sooner and get something for it or adapt when forced and get nothing.

Guess which one we did?