Mandatory Retirement to be Eliminated in Parliament

[Rockie]

I think everyone here gets that mandatory retirement is eventually on the way out. The point of contention is how to equitably do that.

Wrong on two counts. Mandatory retirement isn't eventually on the way out...it's already gone. And if you've been paying any attention at all you know the kind of hostility there is in our pilot group toward anybody in favour of 60+. There is no thought given to how to do it by the members or ACPA, there is only fighting it.

And you're still under this misconception that our pay scheme has something to do with this. It has nothing to do with this. The CHRT couldn't care less about redistribution because for one it isn't their mandate, and two, there is no redistribution. Everybody has the same right to work as anybody else and if they decide to go early that's their choice. Nobody is taking anything away from them. In fact it's the complete opposite as this quote from ACPA's own expert assessment from 2006 shows. You know...the expert assessment they did not show the membership?

*Flexibility – removing the mandatory retirement provision will allow members to decide when the appropriate time is to retire (according to their individual financial and other considerations)

[JayDee]

SURVEY – AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE

ACPA COMMITTEE Followed by REPORT/ASSESSMENT

Training Committee

No changes, no effect on Collective Agreement; not affect any part of the Training / Licencing requirements under our C/A.
(G. Bobro, Feb. 17/’06)

Crew Rest Facilities Committee

No apparent problems.
(G. Bobro, March 2/’06)


Training Alternatives Committee


No effect.
(Y. Robichaud, March 3/’06
Subsequent submission by members of Committee, in two parts dealing with their (1) mandate, and
(2) committee members concerns; this committee is still in the research and development phase of
alternative pay methods – as yet, no consensus on whether or not it would be affected by any change to the normal retirement age; committee members identify several areas of personal concerns (see for
ref. CMSC below):
· Article 25 – bidding and working conditions … how to handle the current freezes as pilots enter that working
years; what to do with pilots currently frozen off equipment (Art. 25.06.02 – last 18 or 30 months);
· Benefits packages – insurances, GDIP, EMA … will premiums have to increase (re-work actuarial numbers?), will programs come under greater strain as pilots working population ages beyond 60 … will programs be sustainable?
· Training upgrades and failures – how will “train to standard” in Art. 14.04 be affected? Will pilots working beyong age 60 still have opportunity to upgrade (? Failure rates increase; cost of training? etc.);
· Pilot career progression changes may affect other members interested in retiring at age 60 or earlier.
(March 10/’06)

Pilot Assistance Committee


No significant impact on our resources or programs;
perhaps as pilots age there would be more performance failures (sims, checks, etc.) and perhaps general health problems … hard to quantify.
(A. Graham, March 3/’06)

CMSC

Presently no age restriction in Article 25;
working beyond age 60 - some transition issues that will require modification to Article 25 (not knowing final outcome re: any changes to normal retirement age and/or status restriction):
· Art. 25.06.01 – 18 mth mandatory freeze (equipment/status) prior to normal retirement age (60);
· Art. 25.06.02 – 19-30 mths discretionary freeze (equipment/status) prior to normal retirement age;
· Pilots who have been posted off retired but have not reached their retirement date --- how will they return to active status if they wish to do so (?);
· Pilots that have retired and are allowed to return --- how will they return to active status (?);
· Possible impact on surplus/furloughed pilots not returned (recall protocol agreement);
· Protection for pilots restricted from bidding Capt. pos because of age;
· Crewing formula adjustments to cover older pilot group in senior pos – vacation entitlements, sick days, GDIP, etc.;
· Transition agreement required to alleviate initial impact caused by backfilling positions from above
(reverse order)
(G. Marquis, March 4/’06)


PBS Committee


No problem with the PBS system with pilots flying beyond age 60; unless other countries maintain age 60 restriction (e.g. the U.S.A.) – then possible accommodation will have to be made in bidding system, including factors of overflights and U.S. alternates, skewing senior/junior pilots bidding rights possibly.
(F. Coates, Feb. 14/’06)

Constitution Committee/
Administrative Policy Manual

No effect on Constitution; APM may require updating of Sec. III, subsec. A – Negotiating Policy, 12. “The Association strongly opposes any airline, government agency or person arbitrarily setting a retirement age. The Association will recognize a fixed retirement age only when it has become voluntarily negotiated as part of an agreed pension scheme.”
(P. Carter, Feb. 9/’06)

GDIP Committee

Suggest a full review of the GDIP will be required:
· presently pilots over age 40 are required to have 2 medicals, 4 sims, 3 written exams, an ART session and a
mandated route check per year – will this have to be expanded for 60+ pilots?;
· GDIP schedule of benefits (Art. 26.03.03.03) is built around age 60 retirement rule presently … will have to
be expanded to cover pilots working beyond age 60 and for how long = financial $cost for Company;
· Alternative – separate disability plan for 60+ age pilots, in incremental years, tied to ability/fitness to continue in employment? – or – no GDIP beyond age 60 employment … if become disabled, move into retirement/pension (?);
· Anticipated that there will also be increased usage of sick leave/GDIP by older 60+ age pilots = increased
$costs.
(G. Tarves, Feb. 16/’06)


Human Factors Committee
/PEAC

Fatigue and flight safety concerns expected to increase; e.g. humans sleep less as we age and our ability to adapt to sleep variations decreases as we age – implications to PEAC (more) onerous pairings and FRMS; if U.S. FAA not change, creating pairings that do not fly into U.S. would reduce total pairing quality through the entire schedule, possibly; also, possible negative affect on bidding (PBS) if crews have to be mixed by one under/one over 60 ratio (e.g. India ); sim evaluations/medicals do not specifically test for age related deterioration of cognitive abilities – may have to consider (?);
- research paper attached from the Aerospace Medical Association – The Age 60 Rule … “Upon review of the
existing evidence, the Aerospace Medical Association concludes there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based on age alone.”
(D. Tweedlie, Feb. 27, March 2/’06)

Vacation Committee


There would have to be some changes to Vacation section in C/A, and bidding …
examples:
- retiring pilots presently have a minimum number of days to bid, based on the months he will be working
during the year of retirement … will have to transition to a flexible retirement date if allowed to work beyond age 60 (new max.?);
- there may be pressure for increased vacation beyond 25 yrs. service max. at present ($cost);
- GDIP & Vacation has effect on each … more pilots on GDIP = more manual adjustment by Crew Manning;
- working beyond 60 (senior pilot) would mean less vacation time/slots available to junior pilots.
(M. Paquin, Feb. 16/’06)

Insurance Committee


3 areas of concern: ACPA Basis/Optional Life Ins., Extended Mutual Aid (EMA) and Air Canada Benefits:

· Basic & Optional Life Ins. – current premiums are $3 per mth. for $20,000 basic life coverage … if there were
some impact of raising retirement age, could increase premium (to $3.50); for optional life, coverage could be
impacted and could be resolved by creating a new category for age 60-64 (as an est. premium cost - $.42 per $1000; pilots not wishing to pay this premium could opt out);
· EMA – impacted most … our experience is that members in the age 55-59 age group have the highest
experience onto GDIP and we assume same for post-60 pilots group … could put financial strain on the trust
(presently .325% of gross income funds the trust) and expect to be paying out more in EMA benefits due to
a higher retirement age … would have to monitor EMA closely (perhaps exclude age 60-65 pilots from EMA
plan?);
· Air Canada Plans – would probably see some impact of extending benefits coverage beyond age 60 (claims
increase, costs for coverage … but may be offset in other areas such as pension and training).
- for more comprehensive study we would have to bring in an insurance consultant … perhaps from Eckler Partners Ltd. ?
(J. Jackson, March 9/’06)


OSH Committee

Difficult to determine what impact might be of having older pilots in the workplace … would need a risk management study/analysis;
some assumptions can be made re: more years of radiation at high altitudes, fatigue, jetlag, airline food (nutritional factors); look at other high stress and proficiency professions such as medical surgeons [article offered:
Cognitive changes and retirement among senior surgeons, by L.J. Greenfield MD, from June 2002 Bulletin of the ACofS]; we have no immediate accident statistics to use at Air Canada re: older workers or older pilots; only some speculations, comments offered.
(L. Dore, March 4/’06)

Pension Committee (Air Canada
and Former CAIL)


It is the text of our pension plans that currently includes the language for mandatory retirement, which is included by reference in the Collective Agreement (Articles 26.04.01, 26.04.02), by the following provision(s):
“5.1 Normal retirement A Member shall retire from the Company no later than his Normal Retirement Date … “Normal Retirement Date” means the first day of the month immediately following the month the Member attains the Age of 60.”
In our view – there are few negatives, if any, to removing the mandatory retirement provision; allowing a member to continue to work and accrue additional years of pension service may be beneficial to the pension
plan(s) … on an actuarial basis, it may be less expensive for a member to work an additional year(s) and accrue an additional year(s) of service and start his pension at age 61 then it is for him to retire at age 60. In the end, the Registered Plans would be better off if individuals worked past age 60 instead of
collecting a pension benefit at that age (based on the assumption that our plans text remain as is, unchanged except for the requirement to retire immediately upon attaining age 60 … i.e. still able to retire (voluntarily) with full pension at age 60.
*Cost implications – However on a total plan basis, if older members do work past age 60 and they are not immediately replaced by younger workers, the cost of the pension plan(s) as a percentage of payroll will
probably increase, at least for the short term.
*Flexibility – removing the mandatory retirement provision will allow members to decide when the appropriate time is to retire (according to their individual financial and other considerations)
[*opinion from Eckler Partners Ltd., consultants]
(C. Blandford, March 7/’06)

WOW ! Have I read this report correctly?

ACPA has known since 2006 that extending the retirement age would have very little if

any effect on the masses and yet they have continued to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting

this losing battle. ????????

[Rockie]

Why do you suppose the MEC didn't show this to the membership? Hint: It didn't fit their agenda.

*Flexibility – removing the mandatory retirement provision will allow members to decide when the appropriate time is to retire (according to their individual financial and other considerations)
[*opinion from Eckler Partners Ltd., consultants]
(C. Blandford, March 7/’06)

More importantly, why isn't the membership concerned that the MEC deliberately kept critically important information from them regarding this issue? What other information doesn't the MEC want you to have?

[Brick Head]

You want to talk about propaganda?

You guys have become so predictable. You take a subject matter that is difficult for you to defend against. They almost always are connected to wealth redistribution. You find an issue on the periphery that is connected that you know you can win. You ignore the real issue. Argue only that battle on the periphery. Then declare yourself victorious over the entire subject matter.

You are doing that here. You did that with ACPA's financial impact. You are doing that with the issues of surrounding the deferred compensation system. You are doing that with your own calculation of what the average age of retirement will likely become without mandatory retirement.

You are fooling no one. Assuming of course you guys in the trenches get what is going on.

In your present argument you point out all the issues we have in agreement. Which we have many. The one issue that we have a dispute over (redistribution) is not even mentioned. But you make this statement anyway.


WOW ! Have I read this report correctly?

ACPA has known since 2006 that extending the retirement age would have very little if any effect on the masses and yet they have continued to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting this losing battle. ????????

You guys do know better than believing your own bovine excrement???? I mean I believe that answer to be yes. Well I hope it is anyway. I can only assume that whole statement is deliberate misrepresented spin.

AKA Propaganda.

I think someone is going to make an excellent politician.

[Rockie]

Au contraire Brick Head. I've addressed the redistribution argument repeatedly. The CHRT doesn't care and has no responsibility toward it...period.

But the clause you cite so often pertaining to looking for alternate means simply means there are other ways to mitigate whatever effects may be caused by ending mandatory retirement, so it is not a factor. The CHRT doesn't care what they are as long as they aren't discriminatory, which is why some of the measures put forth by ACPA in the remedy will be challenged and immediately rejected.

How many more times do you want me to repeat that?

[Brick Head]

But the clause you cite so often pertaining to looking for alternate means simply means there are other ways to mitigate whatever effects may be caused by ending mandatory retirement, so it is not a factor.

Exactly

The CHRT doesn't care what they are as long as they aren't discriminatory.

Exactly

which is why some of the measures put forth by ACPA in the remedy will be challenged and immediately rejected.

Yup. I can think of one measure that the Tribunal suggested as an alternative measure, that IMO ACPA has taken out of context. But that is just my opinion.

See we are not that far off in opinion are we?

My I ask, why in your opinion do you think the Tribunal will find discriminatory, the very alternatives that have been accepted as viable in the provincial jurisdictions that have proceeded us on this very subject?

During the Oakes test, the very basis for not apply 15(1)c, why do you think the Tribunal referenced these other provincial jurisdictions, and the alternatives employed in them, when determining that alternatives could preserve the benefit system without the use of mandatory retirement?

Why are these alternative not considered discrimination in the provincial jurisdictions?

Why do you think the Tribunal will contradict their logic, spelled out within the Oaks test, and refuse the very alternatives they site as the rational for not applying 15(1)c?

What you are not entertaining is the idea that the Tribunal has committed itself to the idea of alternatives to preserve the benefit system in the absence of mandatory retirement. Preserve was their choice of words. Yes there will be as many ideas of how to do that as there are pilots. But at the end of the day, under the present ruling, the respondents will decide how to preserve the benefit system without the use of mandatory retirement. That is what the Tribunal has ordered them to do. Yes the Tribunal may very well step in and say they don't like a particular idea. That however will just send the respondents back to the drawing board, to find another way to achieve the same goal.

[TyrellCorp]

So if this goes through why can't the junior ranks take this to the CHRT or whatever appropriate board and claim discrimination. Unless of course the pie is divided appropriately, then whatever discrimination was claimed by the age 60 group will be dwarfed by the abuse that will be bestowed upon the bottom ranks (and to everyone else as well). For me if this goes through then you can't keep hogging the trough at the top while stalling the fringe feeders for many years. We all know that this is what is most likely to happen despite the age 60 groups claim to the contrary. Sorry if I seem somewhat curt, but this topic infuriates me when I think of the discrimination that will could be forced upon us by the privileged.

Brickhead?

[Rockie]

This may be where your misunderstanding is:

What you are not entertaining is the idea that the Tribunal has committed itself to the idea of alternatives to preserve the benefit system in the absence of mandatory retirement.

The CHRT hasn't committed themselves to any such thing. Nor could they. They have no jurisdiction over our benefit system. Suggesting that there are alternate ways to preserve the benefit system is hardly committing themselves, plus they aren't even convinced it's necessary. They're just saying it's not a factor in their decision.

The remedy ACPA has put forth that will be rejected are paragraph 20 (a), (b) and (c) of their statement of particulars. Those are the ones forcing people to collect their pension at 60 whether they retire or not, deny supplementary pension to anybody who goes beyond 60, and deny Captain positions to anyone over 60.

There may be more that's denied, but those three stood out immediately as blatantly discriminatory. Apparently ACPA is having trouble wrapping their minds around this whole discrimination issue.

[Rockie]

So if this goes through why can't the junior ranks take this to the CHRT or whatever appropriate board and claim discrimination.

They can. Good luck with that.

If you want to start a campaign to institute status pay that will greatly even out the money distribution and eliminate mandatory retirement as an irritant you can count on my support.

[Brick Head]

This may be where your misunderstanding is:

What you are not entertaining is the idea that the Tribunal has committed itself to the idea of alternatives to preserve the benefit system in the absence of mandatory retirement.

The CHRT hasn't committed themselves to any such thing. Nor could they. They have no jurisdiction over our benefit system. Suggesting that there are alternate ways to preserve the benefit system is hardly committing themselves, plus they aren't even convinced it's necessary. They're just saying it's not a factor in their decision.

Rockie,

I don't think you even see that your argument sits between a rock and a hard place.

The above is a fundamental error, and is the basis for much of the lack of understanding of why we are where we are, and where this is going.

The Tribunal is the defender of the CHRA. 15(1)c of the CHRA is the defender of deferred compensation systems. The Tribunal has a responsibility to protect deferred compensation systems. By knocking out mandatory retirement you did not change that. All you changed was how that would be done.

It is why during the Oakes test, it was the alternatives that enabled the Tribunal to rationalize that 15(1)c was no longer necessary. Had they not had a viable alternative to mandatory retirement to protect the system? They would have had to apply 15(1)c. And here you are arguing there are no viable alternatives. Hello!

Repeat. They did not rule that 15(1)c was not a reasonable limit on the charter. Full stop. They ruled that 15(1)c was not a reasonable limit on the charter when alternatives that do not infringe on a protected right could be used in its place.

By knocking out mandatory retirement the Tribunal did not eradicate the protection of deferred compensation systems and their responsibility to them under the CHRA. They have just chosen to protect them by different means.

By arguing there are no alternatives to mandatory retirement that can preserve the system, you are arguing that the tribunal screwed up the Oakes test. The test for which this whole ruling was based.

You are actually arguing that the latest ruling should be over turned.

What do you think the respondents are going to do with your logic in appeals court? Yes I know this is not your personnel logic, but is rather the fly past 60 position.

It appears the respondents and the complainants agree. The Tribunal errored when they refused to apply 15(1)c.

[DocAV8R]

Brick Head wrote

The Tribunal has a responsibility to protect deferred compensation systems.

I have read and reread the CHRA and cannot find that section of the ACT. I don't believe it has that responsibility. Could you direct us to the exact location of proof for your suggestion?

[Rockie]

The Tribunal has a responsibility to protect deferred compensation systems.

No they don't. But for the sake of argument let's say they did. Do you think they would allow discriminatory practices to continue to protect a deferred compensation scheme that isn't adversely effected in the first place, and in the second place can be changed?

Repeat. They did not rule that 15(1)c was not a reasonable limit on the charter. Full stop. They ruled that 15(1)c was not a reasonable limit on the charter when alternatives that do not infringe on a protected right could be used in its place.

No they didn't. Here is what they ruled:

"For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the Respondents have not met their onus under
section 1 of the Charter. Section 15(1)(c) of the CHRA is not a reasonable limit on the
Complainants’ equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter. Therefore, we refuse to apply it to
the facts of the present case."

By arguing there are no alternatives to mandatory retirement that can preserve the system,

When did I say that?

The Tribunal errored when they refused to apply 15(1)c.

If by some miracle ACPA wins that argument in the JR, what's been gained? 15(1)(c) is soon to disappear with the private members bill working its way through parliament.

What's ACPA going to do then? Stage a revolt?

[Brick Head]

Brick Head wrote

The Tribunal has a responsibility to protect deferred compensation systems.

I have read and reread the CHRA and cannot find that section of the ACT. I don't believe it has that responsibility. Could you direct us to the exact location of proof for your suggestion?

I'd be pleased to. 15(1)c

Why is 15(1)c in the CHRA? What is its intended purpose? Once you understand the purpose you will understand that the architects of the CHRA purposefully sought to protect benefit systems from the very language they were writing. The problem with time is we no longer understand the "why",unless we take the time to educate ourselves.

The Tribunal upholds the CHRA. The CHRA protects deferred compensation systems.

Why is that? Because they are beneficial to people. Why would the architects of the CHRA want to destroy something that is beneficial, particularly to retires through larger pensions in the name of human rights?

The answer is they didn't. Although many years later you guys are trying.

[Brick Head]

Repeat. They did not rule that 15(1)c was not a reasonable limit on the charter. Full stop. They ruled that 15(1)c was not a reasonable limit on the charter when alternatives that do not infringe on a protected right could be used in its place.

No they didn't. Here is what they ruled:

"For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the Respondents have not met their onus under
section 1 of the Charter. Section 15(1)(c) of the CHRA is not a reasonable limit on the
Complainants’ equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter. Therefore, we refuse to apply it to
the facts of the present case."

Rockie,

Your just not getting this. That is how they ruled.

Why did they rule that way? Why?

[Rockie]

I know what you're talking about Brick Head. We just have a different opinion on the importance of all the verbiage that comes before the actual text of the ruling. I think it's just discussion of the merits, and you think it binds the CHRT into some sort of responsibility over and above their strict mandate.

You might be right. I don't think so, but it's not like I've never been wrong before. We'll see before too long I think.

[accumulous]

Does anybody have the specific mailing/phone information for the Intake Office at the Human Rights Commission that is currently taking applications for 60+ in the AC case? Can you please post it.

Also does anybody know what the current backlog numbers are? There is the V-K issue, then about 70 currently before the Tribunal and another 30-40+ being processed by the Commission for forwarding to the Tribunal??

Thanks.

[DocAV8R]

The information you request is available at the Canadian Human Rights Commission website http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/contact
and the Flypast60.com web-site.

If you are inquiring about a potential complaint, please contact by telephone, fax or mail.

Here are some links that may help answer some of your questions:

* Dispute Resolution
* Who can a complaint be filed against
* Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination
* Frequently Asked Questions

3) Contact information

Canadian Human Rights Commission
344 Slater Street, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E1, Canada
Telephone: (613) 995-1151
Toll Free: 1-888-214-1090
TTY: 1-888-643-3304
Fax: (613) 996-9661
Regional Offices

Join the Fly Past 60 Group at Flypast60.com There is lots of information on the site and once you contact them they will get you up to speed on all the steps you need to take to be properly represented and how to prepare for your case.

[accumulous]

Thanks very much. It seems there were about 70 all lumped together from various filings in the group that has just finished the hearing process a few weeks ago? Is there any expectation on the next 30-40 and if that will be the same type of procedure or not - do they wait until there is another 70 or so before the next grouping or are there other developments happening?

[DocAV8R]

Just my opinion, but by following the cases, I believe that both groups have won their cases and the remedy phase is in progress. An order for cease and desist is imminent, as is reinstatement for those who have filed cases. I doubt it will apply to anyone who hasn't filed a complaint. I do suspect that a number have signed on that don't necessarily want to come back, but believe in supporting the group. There may even be a few who see the win and hope to cash in. It is incumbent on the individual to have made steps to mitigate their damages. Just signing up is not enough. Records of job app's, letters to the company requesting continuing work etc. The Fly Past 60 group can tell you exactly what is required. I doubt that this will go before the Tribunal in another case before Air Canada capitulates or is forced to Cease and Desist, but other complaints in other sections of the CHRA may be brought before the Tribunal, especially in light of the behavior of ACPA over these past 4-7 years.
Also, there is no way on earth that the Federal court will reverse its decision, (contrary to Brick Head's wishes,) so that is only an expensive delaying tactic of ACPAs. Remember the ACPA and AC lawyers get paid no matter what. They are happy at our idiotic plan to drag this out and spend as much money on it as possible.
These are my opinions.
I have tried not to offer opinions, only facts before. I prefer if you all make up your own minds based on facts, not ACPA propaganda.
We should press ACPA to get the Pension Calculator to allow it to show what happens to your pensions if you choose to stay past 60. Just a thought. We all could ask them.

[Lost in Saigon]

We should press ACPA to get the Pension Calculator to allow it to show what happens to your pensions if you choose to stay past 60. Just a thought. We all could ask them.

Just go to the ACPA pension calculator and change your date of birth to 5 years younger. Change the retirement date to reflect how young you now are.

https://secure.acpa.ca/members/committe ... laimer.asp

Then don't forget to add in some extra annual earnings for your best 5 because you will be able to hold a higher paying position.

The results of 5 extra years at a higher rate will be much more than you would get at age 60. Probably $10-20,000 per year, for the rest of your life.

[Al707]

For the rest of your now shorter life.... Great!

Where to sign up

[Rockie]

For the rest of your now shorter life.... Great!

Where to sign up

You can retire early if you like. Don't worry, we won't think you're lazy because of it.

I've always found it somewhat amusing that even though we obviously love flying and pursued this career with singleminded determination, we get here and spend the rest of our career avoiding flying as much as possible, and want to quit as soon as possible.

As a group we aren't exactly good examples of work ethic.

[HavaJava]

For the rest of your now shorter life.... Great!

Where to sign up

You can retire early if you like. Don't worry, we won't think you're lazy because of it.

I've always found it somewhat amusing that even though we obviously love flying and pursued this career with singleminded determination, we get here and spend the rest of our career avoiding flying as much as possible, and want to quit as soon as possible.

As a group we aren't exactly good examples of work ethic.

Actually, I pursued a flying career because I wanted the lifestyle that Air Canada provides. Was it risky to bet it all on getting hired with Air Canada...yes...but it worked.

I do love flying...but at the end of the day, it's a job...and it's always been just a job for me. I have other hobbies and interests that I prefer over going to work and I will take the first opportunity I can to retire comfortably and further pursue my non-flying related interests. I think you will find a large number of pilots share my view.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to work as little as possible and quit as soon as possible...but if flying till you die suits you, I hope you pursue it with "singleminded determination".

[Lost in Saigon]

The pension was design for guys hired at 25 years or younger. Many things have changed since those days and the job is no longer what it was. Few, if any, new-hires are 25 or younger these days, and it only makes sense that we either change the pension rules or change the retirement rules.

Unfortunately the time for discussion is long past and now the courts will decide the outcome for us.

[Rockie]

There is nothing wrong with wanting to work as little as possible and quit as soon as possible...

I said I find it somewhat amusing and a poor example of work ethic. It's certainly not the work ethic I would teach my kids, but there's nothing "wrong" with it in the strict sense of the word. You're paid a minimum monthly guarantee, and if you can get that while only putting in half the work good for you. It's perfectly legal and acceptable under the contract.

Same with retiring as early as you can. You worked hard for it (well...sort of...maybe), and it's your choice.