FP today

[Rockie]

Sad that people can't speak there mind without the threat of litigation.

Sad that people can't argue the merits of ending mandatory retirment without subjection to character attacks. Don't count on a lot of help from those people sorting this mess out when it hits the end of the line. They've tried and likely don't have a taste for it anymore.

[Raymond Hall]

Put your name forward we are looking for a few good people.

James: a sincere question for you, as an elected representative....

Now that the composition of the MEC has changed, and in particular now that we have a completely new MEC Chair, will the MEC's tone change as well? What is your best guess? Do you see the force-retired pilots, including myself, being considered once again as an important part of the membership? For example, am I ever likely to be allowed back into a general council meeting, or will I be excommunicated until the Tribunal orders my reinstatement? Is the die permanently cast so that there can be no genuine dialogue except through litigation?

Will the Age-60 Committee members selected to replace the ones who resigned include at least one member to represent the one-quarter to one-third of the membership that disagrees with mandatory retirement? Are you truly looking for "a few good people" or are you looking for only those that are willing to chorus the failed verses?

An honest, forthright opinion, please.

[vic777]

thread killer

[yycflyguy]

Will the Age-60 Committee members selected to replace the ones who resigned include at least one member to represent the one-quarter to one-third of the membership that disagrees with mandatory retirement?

Really? How do you substantiate those numbers? A third of the membership? 900+ guys? I think you represent around 200 litigants and of those, most admittedly are only looking for a cash settlement.

[accumulous]

Really? How do you substantiate those numbers? A third of the membership? 900+ guys? I think you represent around 200 litigants and of those, most admittedly are only looking for a cash settlement.

First of all when your time comes to continue employment past 60, you won’t have to apply to the CHRC for it because Mandatory Retirement will be long gone and stuffed in the same Discrimination folder as the demise of the prohibition on Hiring Age from 30 years ago, ‘Ordered’ by another Tribunal.

In addition, if you were one of the Complainants who has already filed with the CHRC, amid the rapidly growing numbers, when you received the package from Ottawa, you would clearly see that it’s all about reinstatement.

The Act of Discrimination is all about the right to be employed. The first order of business is returning to work. So everybody, by application, is looking for reinstatement.

It is entirely within the purview of the CHRT as a by-product of the reinstatement process, to decide what the consequent damages for the act of Discrimination are. You’ve already seen some examples of that. The damages may be minimal or they may be massive. Only the Tribunal will decide that. The key word is Employment. Employment is the first thing that happens. So the ‘red herrings’ that keep getting tossed out are just that – ‘red herrings’.

As for your total numbers, in the front-end loaded survey that ACPA used to try to get a reason to pour millions into a lost cause of defending Discrimination, on the backs of a few thousand pilots, around 450 pilots voiced their preference many years ago for continuing employment on their own terms. Couple that with the numbers who had already filed, and add in the numbers who are filing into the CHRC on a weekly basis, and you have a mass of humanity that approaches the sizes of the Montreal, Winnipeg, and Vancouver Bases combined.

You’ll also notice that the Age 60 Committee has resigned en masse. When they find replacements who are willing to spend thousands of hours in and out of court and millions of dollars of your union dues fighting an utterly lost cause, it will likely coincide with the return of the second wave of wrongfully displaced Pilots.

You’ll clearly notice when the next round of Orders comes down that the first item on the list will be Employment. In concert with that, Penalties for depriving individuals of their right to Employment under the Charter, do flow from acts of Discrimination, and rightly so. The examples of that are all public and available for viewing on site.

[yycflyguy]

ok, so that means you can't substantiate the claim that 25-33% of the members are against mandatory retirement that was claimed.

You’ll also notice that the Age 60 Committee has resigned en masse

Yup, that happens when there are recalls and the the committee sees that there will be a different tack taken by the new MEC and that their chair lost a vote of confidence. Please see what happened to Michael Ignatieff and Gilles Duceppe in the recent Federal election. Their resignations have nothing to do with the political and legal wrangling.

[accumulous]

ok, so that means you can't substantiate the claim that 25-33% of the members are against mandatory retirement that was claimed.

Whatever - it only takes 1. Any more than that is irrelevant to the case. It's called Individual Rights. You can't vote Individual rights away, no matter how much money you want to throw at it, and if you want to call yourself the Age 60 Committee in a Human Rights arena, well, you've seen the results so far. The extermination program fell flat faced right out of the gate on those two counts alone.

[yycflyguy]

Safe to say than that you acknowledge that this is contrary to the wishes of the majority of the membership. Thank you.

[accumulous]

It doesn't matter what your wishes are. You can go at 55, 60, or whenever you want to go. The program is that nobody will be telling anybody else when to retire. That's the gist of the Rights legislation. Over 2600 pilots can't make the max pension contributions at 60, so it wouldn't come as any surprise to see the vast majority of pilots electing to continue their employment past 60, including the ones that are pretending to be against it right now in order to clear the list. Just watch the huge shift that occurs when the puck drops.

[777longhaul]

For yycflyguy

Please, show us, the acpa survey/poll (call it what you want) that shows that the MAJORITY of the pilots, who could vote, (total pilots on the ac pilots list) voted for a majority against the age 60 issue.

All the information that all of us viewed, has clearly showed, that there is NO majority vote, against the age 60 issue. The percentage of pilots that voted, was less than 50% of the total pilots on the seniority list. Right from the get go, that is a wash out on any survey/poll etc.

The survey/poll was an official acpa survey/poll, and therefore will be on the acpa site, so please obtain it, and post it here for all of us to view.

[accumulous]

The Survey is simply the way you get all the pilots to share the tab for the group that tried to usurp the Rights Legislation.

If you didn’t load a Survey and duly note it, you wouldn’t have a source of funding for anywhere up to 25 million in liability that you intend to spread across the entire Membership in the event of a Special Assessment. You just can’t afford to load that kind of cash on the core group. You have to spread it right clean across even the Members who are clearly against it.

It’s simply not feasible to carry out a full blown seniority list purge program on a shoestring budget when you launch yourself right up against Parliament in a lost cause attempt to keep the music running on the Musical Chairs Seniority Game.

Indeed if you flip through case histories on Discrimination, where have you ever seen a group take a vote to finance a program that has subsequently been ruled an Act of Discrimination by a Tribunal. Let’s see one example. This has to be a first. Why? Because the rest of the general population has common sense. Take a look at the just completed actions of the other AC Employee Unions.

In terms of the original Survey, the clear MINORITY in absolute numbers was in favor of forced retirement for ALL Pilots but the clear MINORITY vote results in ALL Pilots ultimately paying for the failed initiative. There was likely no other way to finance it. You want to take Parliament on in a clear Kamikaze move, you have to pay the price tag. No leadership, no plan, no foresight, no nothing.

[turbo-beaver]

777longhaul:

here is the result of the survey/poll which at the time it was done, I thought it was highly illegal. I was very vocal about it and censored on all their forums. It is like having a survey saying, how many are in favour of having Chinese pilots or any other group protected by our laws. Idiots.

IVR Vote # 72- Mandatory Retirement Age 60 Rule:

3083 eligible voters

1. Yes votes 1382
2. No votes 458

[accumulous]

They absolutely should have cast the Survey in real Pilot terms and the entire mess could have been avoided.

They should have said,

“Look, going the distance all the way to the Scene of the Crash could cost upwards of 25 Million split two ways with the Corp. The Pilots’ share, divided by the Total Contingent, will cost over 600 Premium Pints per person which at 6 layovers per month on an annual assignment of 11 months will be a full NINE DRY YEARS all in the interest of blowing a hole through both feet by virtue of a failed attempt to deny ourselves an open-ended career and pension for no apparent reason other than an inability to think anywhere outside the Box. Please vote accordingly. If you would prefer a Max Career, Max Pension, and Max Beer, please vote 'No' to this Nut Festival."

A guy gets bloody thirsty just looking at the staggering numbers.

[Rockie]

What the pilots want in terms of mandatory retirement legislation is completely irrelevant, even if 100% of them wanted to keep it. What you really voted on six years ago was to throw millions of dollars away.

Stupid.

[Norwegianwood]

Federal budget passes House of Commons vote

Spending plan revised slightly from Flaherty's March budget

CBC News


With a majority government giving them the power of numbers, the federal Conservatives had no problem passing their budget in the House of Commons on Monday.MPs have approved the revised budget that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered in the House of Commons on June 6. Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press

The budget passed by a vote of 167 to 131, with all the opposition parties voting against it.

Last week, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty introduced a budget only slightly revised from the one he had tabled in March, shortly before the spring election campaign was kicked off.

This new budget includes the campaign promise made by the Tories to eliminate the federal deficit a year ahead of schedule. The March budget had forecast a deficit of $300 million in 2014-2015 and a surplus in 2015-2016.

But the Conservatives are promising the deficit will be eliminated by 2014-2015 through savings from a government-wide operating review.

On Monday, Kevin Page, the parliamentary budget officer, said he wanted to see a more detailed plan from the government on how it intends to reach its savings targets.

The budget passed Monday also includes $2.2 billion for an HST compensation deal for Quebec and a commitment to phase out the per-vote subsidy for federal political parties.

[James Delgaty]

Hi there Ray,

To answer your question and in no way representing the association I think the previous MEC had no choice but to follow the path they took. Since I have been involved no one has made a motion at any meeting to change the direction we were going in. I know this is not what you want to hear but the reality is this is the system we have. One thing I will say is that you are never going to please everyone at the same time. 3200 type A personalities are here and trying to please everyone is just never going to happen. Hence the Democracy thing. The fact that most ACPA members still want to retire at 60 is there choice, also the fact we have some that want to keep going past 60 is something we have to respect as well. So for me it is a balancing act, and where we go from here is yet to be seen. I do hope we get some great people on the Age 60 committee, and would like to see where it goes from there. Without any fear mongering I think that the association so far has just been trying to represent its members. As for the question about coming to a meeting, you do know the protocol on how to attend a local meeting. My thoughts are retired members are more than welcome at any meeting. As for the question about general dialog I will listen and respect anything you have to say with regards to the subject. On this forum and others I have seen no real dialog, as most of the posting on the subject are just fear mongering and insults with no real educational value to them.

James









James: a sincere question for you, as an elected representative....

Now that the composition of the MEC has changed, and in particular now that we have a completely new MEC Chair, will the MEC's tone change as well? What is your best guess? Do you see the force-retired pilots, including myself, being considered once again as an important part of the membership? For example, am I ever likely to be allowed back into a general council meeting, or will I be excommunicated until the Tribunal orders my reinstatement? Is the die permanently cast so that there can be no genuine dialogue except through litigation?

Will the Age-60 Committee members selected to replace the ones who resigned include at least one member to represent the one-quarter to one-third of the membership that disagrees with mandatory retirement? Are you truly looking for "a few good people" or are you looking for only those that are willing to chorus the failed verses?

An honest, forthright opinion, please.

[Rockie]

I think the previous MEC had no choice but to follow the path they took.

Try and find any balanced information the union gave the membership on this issue prior to the vote in 2006 James. Try and find anything at all the union put out explaining the pro's of ending mandatory retirement versus the steady doom and gloom, end of the world as we know it diet they've kept the membership on the last six years. Then go back and read the question the union put to the membership to vote on.

Now try and say again with a straight face and without gagging on your own words that the previous MEC had no choice but to follow the path they took.

[James Delgaty]

Rockie

It was just my opinion, no need for personal attacks thanks.

If you like come to a meeting and put a motion forward, telling the MEC what you want. Call or Email, drop by the office. But lambasting me for just putting an opinion out is not the way to go.

James

[Raymond Hall]

As for the question about coming to a meeting, you do know the protocol on how to attend a local meeting.

James:

Let me start by saying that I am impressed with your candid response. You are indeed trying to represent your electorate, and you are more than brave to discuss these issues here with me here. As you know, I, as a “quote unquote” retired pilot, have no alternative means of communicating with anyone from ACPA.

My attendance at the YYZ base Council meeting last year ended with nothing but animosity, and my most recent attempt to discuss any pilot issues, including my own retirement, with the MEC Chair (at last year’s YWG dinner, where I was entitled to be one of the honoured retirees, but declined) resulted in him not only telling me to, well, you know what, but also with him filing a complaint with my Law Society about even talking with him (instead of ACPA's legal counsel) about my own complaint before the Tribunal regarding my illegal termination of employment, and about my union’s duty to represent my interests. Some dialogue.

My thoughts are retired members are more than welcome at any meeting. As for the question about general dialog I will listen and respect anything you have to say with regards to the subject.

I did follow the protocol subsequently to being evicted from the YYZ Council meeting. I formally asked the YWG base Chair for permission to attend a YWG base meeting, and he told me I was not not welcome; permission denied. So much for that avenue.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the world is indeed changing, and I am not going away. The Association can deal with me now, of it can deal with me later, after my employment is reinstated. There are currently 162 complainants before the CHRT seeking reinstatement, with additional complainants at the Commission pending referral to the Tribunal, and that number is growing weekly. That number is larger than the YWG base. And they are not going away, either.

What many individuals have suggested on this Forum is that ACPA seriously needs to reconsider its strategy, especially in light of the proposed legislation to repeal the mandatory retirement exemption, which will have the same effect of as the February, 2011 Federal Court decision upholding the Tribunal’s decision interpreting the mandatory retirement provision of the collective agreement as violating the Canadian Human Rights Act.

So when you speak of representing the pilots, may I respectfully suggest that it is incumbent upon elected members to look beyond the “desires or preferences” of the membership. The decisions must be consistent with actions that are both legal and in their long-term best interest, taking into consideration far more than “what they want.”

That, is real dialogue. For what it is worth to you.

[Rockie]

Rockie

It was just my opinion, no need for personal attacks thanks.

James

If you think that was a personal attack I respectfully suggest you get out of the union business before you're subjected to a real one. Or better yet, post on the Air Canada pilot's forum you support ending mandatory retirement to find out what a real personal attack is.

I mean it James, go and find what I suggested in the previous post if you can, and read again very carefully the question put to the membership in 2006. Then tell me again the MEC had no choice. That isn't a personal attack or lambasting you, it's a homework suggestion.

[777longhaul]

James

Thank you for posting, and being honest.

As far as acpa, representing the members on the age 60 issue, the union is not doing that. There never ever was a majority vote to not allow individual pilots to fly past 60. The last poll/survey, was 2006, and acpa never ever had another poll/survey since. Why not? We all know the answer, the current desire, of the mec was not to allow this, no matter what. acpa, has spent millions of dollars either in legal fees, union release times, other associated costs, and then it is going to incure huge reinstatement costs, that get passed to all the acpa pilots, for what? Everyone, and I mean everyone, else, is not doing what acpa is doing. Does that make sense??

The smart thing to do now, while the mec is being formed, is to get the direction under control, and change the age 60 issue, asap. It will save acpa huge amounts of money, help the pension issue, in the long run, and allow acpa to focus on other important issues, like the new TA etc.

All the other unions at AC have changed. What does acpa think, they are going to be able to do in the long run?

This is such a waste of money, and effort. The savings can be put to the good and much needed use, of getting the new hires pay, improved, getting the junior pilots pay improved, and getting the 5% narrow body pay removed, and addressing the very important pension issues.

The temporary log jam at the CHRT is going to let go one day, and the repreive that acpa has fluked into, is going to burst, and be swept away.

How long is AC going to back acpa, well CR will use that card for the next TA, and then he will flush acpa once he gets his concessionary contract. He almost had it last time.

This age 60 issue is costing AC a lot of money, they will not play with acpa for much longer. acpa signed on for 50% of the costs of reinstatement, and other costs, that was the most insane thing i have ever seen from a union. But the mec did it, and it will cost big time, somewhere down the road.

The time to stop this type of thinking is now. Make a move to get the mec to change. You are a reasonable person, you are in the position to get your voice heard, please make the push, and get help from others at all the bases.

The current mec, is the old seniority driven group, and they will start up the old machine, no matter what the costs to all acpa memebers. AC will play that card, as they have done so, so well in the past, and AC will be back in the game, only with far better cards to play, with seniority, and age 60 promises to acpa, that will never stand a chance in the legal world. Great talk, and saber rattling, but nothing more than smoke and mirrors, and yet again, another huge loss for ALL ac pilots.

Thanks again for posting. I am not allowed on the acpf, so I have no way of knowing what is going on other than this forum. This is true for many others as well.

[accumulous]

There never ever was a majority vote to not allow individual pilots to fly past 60.

This age 60 issue is costing AC a lot of money, they will not play with acpa for much longer.

The word ‘Democracy’ was used rather loosely in this discussion.

In absolute terms, 56 percent of the pilots being against Mandatory Retirement or non-voting, were all lashed to the same Liability Train Tracks as everybody else, with Parliament and the Human Rights Commission Freight Train coming round the last bend.

Now that Age 60 is on the cusp of being permanently slam-dunked into the round file by at least 5 different Federal agencies, the Age 60 Committee in concert with the Negots Committee, has seen fit to resign and leave the tracks with the entire Membership still cinched to the rails as the Steel Wheels of Justice roll into view.

Assuming that the Age 60 issue has gone completely Federal, with Tribunal Orders replacing Membership foresight, with neither ACPA nor AC having any say in how this transpires to completion, other than to flail around in a pile of paper, the question is, who will take over that portfolio with such a Mega Commitment in terms of the endless hours of preparation, court appearances, testimony, and liability proceedings as this issue makes its ill-fated final roll across the finish line.

How will the final Committee be constructed and will its mandate still entail fiscal suicide, having virtually all of the negotiating capital of the Membership completely buried by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[FADEC]

James; I respect your posts. However, it is not possible to defend ACPA's actions and communiques to the members. Just one example. ACPA execs directly and through bulletins repeatedly told the members that ending Mandatory Retirement would "Destroy the Pension". This was a bald faced untruth. Ending Mandatory Retirement means that those who do not wish to collect yet, will not do so, improving the health of the Pension daily. Ask an Actuary; I did, and got chapter and verse. I am sure Mercer, which acts for Air Canada would give you the straight goods as well.

Certain former ACPA execs took positions contrary to reason, using the membership to further their own agendas. This is what destroyed CALPA. "Those who forget History are doomed to repeat it"

It is time for the Pilot group to get expert help on these matters. That does not mean shopping around to find someome who will take your money and tell you your preconceived position is correct. Find truly objective experts and pay attention.

[leadfoot]

Ray,
Are you seriously asking james if you would be welcome to a local meeting? How oblivious are you? Just show up, i am certain that you are always welcome. Bring flowers too. Btw,how much do you charge in legal fees?

[Raymond Hall]

Ray,
Are you seriously asking james if you would be welcome to a local meeting? How oblivious are you? Just show up, i am certain that you are always welcome. Bring flowers too. Btw,how much do you charge in legal fees?

The fact is that I am not welcome, and I have been advised of that by the elected representatives of ACPA. There are rights, and there are rights.