No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako

Brick Head
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by Brick Head »

Rockie wrote:
Jazz flies domestically for the most part and is not the same kind of company Air Canada is, so no, pilots over the age of 65 will be for the most part unemployable. But let's say for the sake of argument that Air Canada and ACPA fail to make that case and must accommodate 65+ pilots. That means domestic flying only, assuming Canada doesn't also adopt the ICAO standard of 65 (which is rooted in safety and trumps human rights).

Does that not accomplish your goal of forcing them off the expensive airplanes? Their best five years will be behind them, and if they've been around long enough staying longer won't win them a bigger pension. But if they do stay they won't be in your way for that big seat and won't be drawing from the pension helping it to stay healthy longer.

What are you complaining about again?
Rockie,

One last attempt at explaining this. For half a century the contract has revolved around the concept of entailing compensation to send people into retirement at 60 with the maximum possible pension. The term is differed income. It is a widely accepted collective bargaining practice. So widely accepted an exception was created in the CHA by the original architects to protect it. That exception has just been struck down by the efforts of the 60+ group. You seem to acknowledge this fact in earlier posts.

If people stay past 60 they will consume the differed income of someone junior to them. The collective pie does not get bigger when someone stays. IOW it has to come from someone's pocket. Yes the differed income can be retrieved but only by staying beyond 60 themselves.

Staying beyond 60 without changes to the way ACPA disperses the wealth will:

Transfer differed income from one individual to another individual who has already received theirs.

The loss of differed income prior to age 60 will result in a form of pension penalty to those retiring at 60.

I have no issues with individuals staying. None. Nor in any specific capacity. None. Many don't. What most want to see is above addressed. What we all want, or should want, is a fair implementation. An issue which for reasons becoming very obvious you have no intention of addressing. We all know why you won't acknowledge the issue. If you acknowledge it you have to deal with it.

Very disappointing. However stating the earth is flat over and over again does not make it so.

All is does is keep us in court
---------- ADS -----------
 
Idle Thrust
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 1:40 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by Idle Thrust »

Whether it's "differed" or "deferred" matters not - Brick Head's post was a good one.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by Rockie »

And I'll explain this one last time. There are X number of pilots in this company flying X number of airplanes. We get paid by the type of airplane and what seat we sit in. That pie is X size and you're right, we decide how to split it up. But once you're one of the pilots at Air Canada you will get your share of the pie barring any catastrophic shutdown. Your income will still increase toward the end of your career and you will still retire on the same airplane you would have before the ruling if you decide to stay till 65. Our pension has not changed, you can retire early with 25 or anytime after 35 with a full pension.

Now, with this change your advancement to the highest paying seat might, and I stress might, be delayed a year or two. But you have two choices here if you still want to retire at 60. You can suck it up and take it like a man or you can cry yourself to sleep every night and whine about it for the next 25 years. Or you can work till 65 and retire in exactly the same seat at exactly the same position on the seniority list you would have before.

Nobody is taking anything away from you, and you are owed nothing regardless.

You are not getting robbed and this is not the end of life as we know it, so let's try and keep things in perspective shall we?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
sepia
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:51 pm
Location: creating a warmer print tone

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by sepia »

Rockie wrote:Your income will still increase toward the end of your career and you will still retire on the same airplane you would have before the ruling if you decide to stay till 65. Our pension has not changed, you can retire early with 25 or anytime after 35 with a full pension.

Now, with this change your advancement to the highest paying seat might, and I stress might, be delayed a year or two. But you have two choices here if you still want to retire at 60. You can suck it up and take it like a man or you can cry yourself to sleep every night and whine about it for the next 25 years. Or you can work till 65 and retire in exactly the same seat at exactly the same position on the seniority list you would have before.

Nobody is taking anything away from you, and you are owed nothing regardless.

You are not getting robbed and this is not the end of life as we know it, so let's try and keep things in perspective shall we?
What you're taking away is my ability to reach the same position and pension that I would have at age 60. I don't plan to cry myself to sleep about it. I expect to join the massive majority and fight this load of steaming crap until the bitter end.
---------- ADS -----------
 
... on the midnight train to romford
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by Rockie »

All you guys cite is the worst case scenario, but you don't really know for sure. For all you know you may reach that coveted seat at exactly the same time because there are soooo many variables. And there are dozens of factors besides this that could delay you reaching that seat including your own lifestyle priorities between now and then. Maybe Air Canada will get rid of the minibuses in the next ten years and go all wide body. You'd be living life of riley then wouldn't you, except you'll probably find something to complain about with that too. It's the Air Canada way.

Once again, you are owed nothing. You do not own any seat at Air Canada except the one you currently occupy and even that can be taken away from you if the floor falls out. And the big kicker is that in 20 years your circumstance may make you very frick'in glad the age went to 65. As someone else said on your side of the debate, be careful what you wish for.

edit: This is my last post on this subject for a period of time. I'm finding my patience with the misplaced and grossly exaggerated sense of entitlement among some of my peers is starting to wear very thin, and I don't want to become part of the problem preventing useful dialogue. I'll hopefully rejoin you when I have my crybaby armor fully restored.

Or maybe not.
---------- ADS -----------
 
'79K20driver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by '79K20driver »

Thanks for the posts Rockie. As an outsider it is good to read some of the perspectives from both sides. I tend to agree with you, as many outsiders do. I think you are right in that many of the naysayers are thinking about the worse case scenario (all recent retirees coming back and everyone else staying until 65+) which is unlikely to be the case at all. Life's circumstances do change, and no doubt there will be some that will be very glad for the opportunity to continue a few years past 60 even if that is not their position now. Thanks again for keeping the dialogue going.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tonysoprano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2589
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:01 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by tonysoprano »

Great, good for you '79k whatever, now here's an insider's view which is the one that really counts!!
For all you know you may reach that coveted seat at exactly the same time because there are soooo many variables.
True. But you just created another obstacle for many people with your complaint. You are part of the negative variables such as Sars, 9/11, recessions and the merger that have held back and will continue to hold people back from a better lifestyle now! People should not have to wait longer than they have to, till you're gone , to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Many signed up with AC and not the other companies because they wanted to be comfortably gone by 60. You knew those rules too and still signed up. Oh yeah, you didn't "sign anything". Excuse me? Gimme an f'n break, you knew exactly what you were getting into. Want to work till 65? Go work somewhere else!
Once again, you are owed nothing.
Neither were you. All we are owed is what we signed up for and what we negotiate.
You do not own any seat at Air Canada except the one you currently occupy and even that can be taken away from you if the floor falls out.
Up untill now the seat "I currently occupy" at AC has enjoyed an annual progression which has allowed me to better my lifestyle despite all the variables because pilots have been retiring every year at 60. That process has now been delayed for potentially up to five years, every year, from here on in. Thanks.
And the big kicker is that in 20 years your circumstance may make you very frick'in glad the age went to 65.
Who gives a shit. I need to put food on the table now and be debt free by the time I'm 60 so that I can enjoy my life starting at 60, not 65!
...and I don't want to become part of the problem
Too late!!!!

Is it all about me? No. It's all about the majority at AC who signed up for a package that was very clear and very attractive to the majority of those who aspired to be here. You have just changed the lives of so many for the worst. Go to sleep with that in mind. Actually, the real question is, WTF do you care? In the end it's not about me or the 99% at AC. I knew what the deal was and I didn't change it. You knew what it was too and you changed it to suit your agenda. It's all about you, dude! Once again, thanks!
---------- ADS -----------
 
contrite
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:02 am

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by contrite »

It seems a shame that someone is not able to enjoy their life before the age of 60, or 65 for that matter. Is the implication that working at Air Canada makes life unenjoyable?

Given the vicissitudes in Air Canada’s fortunes over the decades, it would seem that most of the pilots just happened to be in the station and went along for the ride when the train passed through. And to expect that nothing would change over 30 plus years, or that every change could only be an improvement, would seem to ignore the realities of the world around us.

Besides, if it takes until age 60 after making that kind of coin for so many years to become debt free, it may be a spending/lifestyle choice problem rather than an income problem. The vast majority of Canadians do it earlier on far less, and I would bet they have been enjoying their lives long before the age of 60.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tonysoprano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2589
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:01 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by tonysoprano »

It doesn't have to be debt. It could be just simply enjoying a better lifestyle. I used debt as one example. Perhaps I just simply want a better schedule so I can spend more time with my family. Life at AC is pretty good regardless but that doesn't mean we accept changes when they are not what we want. Our predecessors and present union folk have worked hard to give us and maintain for us a contract that is the envy of many other companies in and outside of our industry. Change is constantly going on within our contract but it is a result of the membership's approval by way of vote!! We collectively decide what we accept and what we don't. Much like some others on here, mostly outsiders, you have missed the point contrite.
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4127
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by rudder »

Rockie wrote: You can suck it up and take it like a man or you can cry yourself to sleep every night and whine about it for the next 25 years.

Nobody is taking anything away from you, and you are owed nothing regardless.

You are not getting robbed and this is not the end of life as we know it, so let's try and keep things in perspective shall we?
Kind of like the merger, right? :)
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Thirteentennorth
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:06 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by Thirteentennorth »

tonysoprano wrote:It doesn't have to be debt. It could be just simply enjoying a better lifestyle. I used debt as one example. Perhaps I just simply want a better schedule so I can spend more time with my family. Life at AC is pretty good regardless but that doesn't mean we accept changes when they are not what we want. Our predecessors and present union folk have worked hard to give us and maintain for us a contract that is the envy of many other companies in and outside of our industry. Change is constantly going on within our contract but it is a result of the membership's approval by way of vote!! We collectively decide what we accept and what we don't. Much like some others on here, mostly outsiders, you have missed the point contrite.
Tony...exactly! The CHRT ruling has taken away the ability of the collective to ultimately decide the form that working conditions at AC will take. As I said in an earlier post, this ruling will destroy collective bargaining in Canada because some squeaky wheel will come along and decide that he or she doesn't like the scheduling rules: they impinge on his/her human right in some way, shape or form. So the CA will have to be changed. Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences being in effect!
---------- ADS -----------
 
The 4 most important words for a pilot: BRAKES SET, GO-AROUND!
Brick Head
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by Brick Head »

Rockie,

You never know who you are conversing with on a forum that uses screen names. Your argument is in fact looking rather polished. However it may just be that you have taken the time to read as I have. Be careful, I will remind myself the same, reading only one side of an issue, any issue, leads to bias even if unintentional.

So to your argument. I get it. In short the strategy goes like this:

-Within the CHRT the burden of proof is on the respondent. Backwards from a normal court where the burden of proof is on the complainant.

-Therefor the burden will be on ACPA to prove wealth transfer, as a result of this ruling, if they want to act on the collective bargaining issue. And this is again not like a normal court. It must be conclusively proven.

-If ACPA can not conclusively prove wealth transfer, it didn't happen.

-If it didn't happen there is no collective bargaining issue to address.

-Checkmate. If it isn't a collective bargaining issue then any changes as a result of the ruling are age discrimination.

I am not here to say it won't work either. It very well might work especially in the upside down judicial world we know as a Human Rights Tribunal. They will however have to ignore the very history they have already acknowledged, and protected in the past, to do it. So although I doubt it, I have to admit it is certainly not outside the realm of possibilities considering the burden of proof issues within A CHRT.

Hence. I understand the strategy.

Within the appeals courts though?

I mean we are the poster child for bargaining around the concept of deferred :mrgreen: compensation. we put it on steroids. The more compensation is end loaded, the larger the pension benefit becomes, and the sooner the workers can afford to leave. Our predecessors have been so successful at this that they have provided us, a pension, and an age we can take it at, that is phenomenal. Some might even say they were too successful. That we have collectively pushed the concept so far that the result may not be sustainable. AKA our current pension crisis. Another thread.

I mean just look at the steepness of our pay grid. Do you think are predecessors didn't know what they were accomplishing when they fought for formula pay? Some smart guys foresaw aircraft getting faster and larger, and the potential that created. They realized that attaching pay to weight and speed would not only increase pay checks as aircraft got larger, but would also create the compensation end loading they sought.

There is recent evidence of ACPA collective bargaining this way. During CCAA the extra 5% cut to the 320 rather than a 3% cut fleet wide? Do a percentage comparison on how far off formula pay each type is since the ravaging of CCAA. The smallest aircraft is the farthest away. The second smallest is the second furthest away. All aircraft that provide the pay for a max pension very close. Accident? No. Since CCAA the pay gradient has actually gotten steeper.

Although we all just take this for granted. It has always just been this way as far back as any of us remember, right? That does not mean that our compensation grid was not, and is not by design. In this case designed around end loading the age of 60. As soon as you move that age unintended wealth transfer takes place. It is that simple.



So although I understand the underlying strategy of your argument, that wealth transfer will not take place. That no one has a right to anything therefor no transfer. Therefor no collective bargaining issue. That argument denies history. It denies well established principles that have been in place for decades. Principle we can see still being employed recently. Principles that, up to now, even had protections from the CHA because they were considered so important.

Like I said earlier. You can stand here all day long and tell me the earth is flat but, it won't change reality.

Earlier in this thread you lament over no dialogue on implementing post 60 by ACPA. To have dialogue that leads to resolution you must have a willingness on both sides to acknowledge the other parties legitimate concerns. If one side refuses to acknowledge a legitimate concern it can not be discussed and therefor can not be resolved.

Which is why we have courts.

A shame because there are ways to protect the system so that we don't implode what our predecessors worked so hard for.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tonysoprano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2589
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:01 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by tonysoprano »

A shame because there are ways to protect the system so that we don't implode what our predecessors worked so hard for.
Brick. You don't get it. I'm going out on a limb here suggesting that Rockie comes from a background that has been attempting to diminish ACPA and indeed Air Canada itself. Weaken it, if you will. Have a look back. Some of his posts give it away if you pay attention. Your long and thought out reasoning will not deter him. He was convinced many many years ago. You're wasting your time. They are now throwing salt on our wounds.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Brick Head
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by Brick Head »

Thirteentennorth wrote:
Tony...exactly! The CHRT ruling has taken away the ability of the collective to ultimately decide the form that working conditions at AC will take. As I said in an earlier post, this ruling will destroy collective bargaining in Canada because some squeaky wheel will come along and decide that he or she doesn't like the scheduling rules: they impinge on his/her human right in some way, shape or form. So the CA will have to be changed. Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences being in effect!


By the way. I am physically disabled. I physically can't handle overseas. :mrgreen:

Before we go too far here though, the CHRT has done nothing WRT remedy yet. Has done nothing to impinge upon the collective bargaining rights of a union. What we have is a group that is about to ask them to do this. To assume the CHRT will go along with the request is getting ahead of ourselves. Just because a few individuals think it is a done deal doesn't make it so. What we need to do is make sure collective bargaining rights are protected and remain so.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tonysoprano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2589
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:01 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by tonysoprano »

Right. However, with this decision, this little group has gained significant power in the eventual administration of this farce. ACPA/AC will be walking on eggshells in trying to implement this ruling without infringing on the ruling. All they have to do is cry foul and guess who'll step in to mediate in their favour??? Let's hope I'm wrong but this precedence I think will have some serious repercussions.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Brick Head
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by Brick Head »

tonysoprano wrote:All they have to do is cry foul and guess who'll step in to mediate in their favour???
In the upside down world of the CHRT where burden is on the respondent? Yup could be a slippery slope. It is just not that simple though. The CHRT has no jurisdiction to dictate distribution of the collective wealth. Exactly why Rockie claims the whole notion of redistribution is a fairy tale. Because if unintended redistribution is proven to take place, and the CHRT prevents a union from correcting it, the CHRT has effectively dictated distribution. Which they can not do. So somewhere in all the murk is a line they can't cross.

However because public policy is being set here, it does not mean that the CHRT themselves won't be using us to test the waters, sort of speak, on their own limits.

Makes one feel special don't it? :rolleyes:

But as it stands right now the CHRT has not commented on remedy. They haven't even heard arguments on remedy. The cart is way out in front of the horse. Don't just assume, as others are trying to convince everyone, that the CHRT will find a balanced approach, both operationally and collectively, to implementing their ruling, offensive.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Brick Head on Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
tonysoprano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2589
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:01 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by tonysoprano »

I'm sure the HRT knows its limits. Somewhere there has to be some common sense in this nonsense.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Brick Head
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by Brick Head »

Actually I think there is a lot of common sense in the ruling. I don't see anything that stands out as illogical. I hope we don't appeal it to be honest. I mean this is not a train we will be able to stop. Nor do we really need to so long as implementation is done equitably.

I don't think we need to fear the CHRT forcibly implementing something that drastically shifts the collective pie around.

This is certainly not a slam dunk for those that think it is human right to stay without a shed of their seniority rights reduced. Changes related to working conditions, revolving around a specific age? It has already been done elsewhere.

For your consideration. From the ruling.

[36] Another alternative is to permit workplace parties to renegotiate the terms and conditions
of employment at an agreed upon age. He stated that this has been successfully done in some
Ontario universities where professors who reach a certain age agree to stay on as professors
emeritus.


Yet some would have us believe this option would be blatantly discriminatory. Hmmm.

[149] However, there may be alternatives to potential scheduling problems that arise from the
implementation of the over/under rule. For example, it may be that instead of requiring under 60
first officers to accommodate the over 60 captains, the respondents could agree that in the event of a scheduling problem, the over 60 captains would be required to bid into other positions where they could be accommodated.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tonysoprano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2589
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:01 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by tonysoprano »

[149] However, there may be alternatives to potential scheduling problems that arise from the
implementation of the over/under rule. For example, it may be that instead of requiring under 60
first officers to accommodate the over 60 captains, the respondents could agree that in the event of a scheduling problem, the over 60 captains would be required to bid into other positions where they could be accommodated.
Like I said earlier. Perhaps a "pilot emeritus" on the EMB would be suitable. All jokes aside, this still wouldn't remove them from the seniority list which again, would cause damages to our younger pilots. I'm sure the company and ACPA will come up with something that will make this decision a bloody waste of time. Stay tuned.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Brick Head
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by Brick Head »

I mean look at the wording.

the respondents could agree that in the event of a scheduling problem, the over 60 captains would be required to bid into other positions where they could be accommodated.

Respondents would be AC and ACPA agreeing. No mention that the complainants have to agree. That sentence is directly in line with staying out of collective bargaining.

A freaking few pages ago I asked this question.

-If wide body CA's become FO's at 60.
-If the FO position is created for them.
-If the corresponding PR position is eliminated.

Is progression harmed? Not suggesting we do this. Probably better ideas out there. Just saying we might be talking mountain mole hill here.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tonysoprano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2589
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:01 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by tonysoprano »

Stay tuned. The company will soon give us an opinion and then ACPA will act accordingly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Al707
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:04 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by Al707 »

If every reasonable attempt at fair implementation is argued as discriminatory then perhaps we all need to be part of the solution.

Mandatory increased union dues to all pilots. Just to a level that is sufficient to offer bypass pay to anyone proven to bid the next higher paying position to the bottom. One guys stays (Capt. 777?) and whoever bid 777 Captain to the bottom but can't hold it now gets the uplift. Wherever he would have come from (Captain 767?) Whoever bid for the vacancy that would have been but can't hold it now gets the uplift. etc etc.

Basically for every 1 guy who stays it holds up 10 positions I think?

C777/C330/C767/C320/CEMB/F777/F330/F767/F320 then the lowly PG.

The GFT (greedy f***ers tax).

It would need to be paid by all otherwise deemed discriminatory. But the only guys ever to reclaim some or perhaps most or perhaps more than contributed would be those who have been delayed in progressing.

Some companies have had a bypass pay system for years but paid by the employer and only when they decided to keep and employee beyond normal retirement age. It might take some of the sting out of things?

Just a thought. Perhaps a collective solution to a collective problem?

Either that or just .... never mind better bite my tongue!
---------- ADS -----------
 
DocAV8R
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by DocAV8R »

Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission
to the Ministry of Labour
Regarding the Consultations on Ending Mandatory Retirement
September 2004
This submission is in response to the Ministry of Labour’s public consultation on
ending mandatory retirement.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (“OHRC”) commends the Ministry for
these steps towards ending mandatory retirement.
Human Rights and Mandatory Retirement
There are many economic, social, and human resource issues associated with
mandatory retirement, as the Consultation Paper recognizes. At the core of the
debate over mandatory retirement, however, lies a fundamental issue of human
rights.
Employment is central to an individual’s opportunity to participate fully in society.
Not only does it have a major impact on a person’s economic status, but for
many people, employment is central to their sense of dignity and self-worth.
Employment promotes independence, security, self-esteem and a sense of
contributing to the community. The loss of employment can have a devastating
effect on a worker. The denial of employment based solely on age is therefore a
significant concern to the OHRC.
The OHRC believes that mandatory retirement is a form of age discrimination. It
involves making an employment decision solely on the basis of age, and not the
person’s ability to do the job. As a society, we would not find it acceptable if
individuals were to be terminated from employment on the basis of any other
ground in the Ontario Human Rights Code (“the Code”), such as race, sex or
disability. The OHRC is very concerned that ageism and age discrimination do
not seem to evoke the same sense of moral outrage and condemnation as other
forms of unequal treatment. We are glad to see that the Ontario government is
committed to addressing these concerns.
At the heart of the Code is respect for human dignity. The Preamble to the Code
states that its purpose is to “recognize the dignity and worth of every person and
to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary
to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and
mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels
a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and wellbeing
of the community and the Province”. Mandatory retirement, which
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
2
undermines older Ontarians’ independence, participation, and ability to make
choices, is antithetical to the values of the Code.
It should also be remembered that the age 65 cap on Code protections against
discrimination in employment also leaves vulnerable those who have been able
to continue working past the age of 65. These workers currently have no
protection under the Code against discriminatory practices based on their age.
Impact of Mandatory Retirement
In September 2000, the OHRC launched an extensive, province-wide
consultation on age discrimination. The OHRC received a tremendous response
to this consultation and received many submissions regarding mandatory
retirement. Many individuals and organizations told the OHRC that the imposition
of retirement has a significant financial impact. People expressed a fear that they
would lose their homes, face a significant drop in their standard of living, or even
find themselves in a state of poverty. As well, being told that one is no longer a
valued employee, solely because of one’s age, has a profound psychological and
emotional impact. One individual stated that “Much of human dignity is
experienced and expressed through work. As social creatures, we need to feel
valued and empowered, feelings that come from knowing we are contributing to
our social fabric … a significant number of people … experience feelings of
uselessness and devalued self-worth upon retiring”.1
As the Consultation Paper recognizes, mandatory retirement can have a
particularly serious financial impact on some persons. Women who stay at home
to raise children or care for family members do not receive income and cannot
contribute to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) for the years they do not work.
Moreover, when they do return to work once they no longer have caregiving
responsibilities, they may face retirement just as they reach the peak of their
careers or earning capacity. Women who are part of the paid labour force but
who tend to work in sectors where employer pension plans are not available, in
part-time or temporary employment and in jobs that earn considerably less than
men, face a different challenge. These women are unlikely to be able to accrue a
large enough CPP, RRSP or private pension to allow them to retire to a decent
standard of living. Women are therefore often at real risk of being forced into
poverty as a result of mandatory retirement.
Recent immigrants face many of the same difficulties. They may have a shorter
period of employment in Canada upon which to build up a pension and they,
along with racial minorities and persons with disabilities also tend to have more
restricted access to the labour market, lower incomes and greater unemployment
during their working lives. As a result, these groups also face serious
consequences because of mandatory retirement.
1 Time for Action: Advancing Human Rights for Older Ontarians, Ontario Human Rights
Commission, 2001
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
3
As well, a number of consultees told us that they are responsible for supporting
others, such as family members with a disability, or university-aged children, and
that they will not be able to do so if they are no longer permitted to work. They
expressed great concern about the consequences of their retirement for their
loved ones.
Workplace Policies Related to Retirement
The removal of the age 65 cap on Code protections against age discrimination
would affect a number of workplace policies and practices.
Some employers, particularly in occupations that are high risk and/or physically
demanding, view mandatory retirement policies as essential. Under the Code,
mandatory retirement policies are not discriminatory where they are bona fide
occupational requirements. 2 For example, policies that require police officers
and firefighters to retire at age 60 have already been the subject of human rights
complaints.
In the past, such policies were found justifiable on the basis of evidence of a
correlation between age and physical decline that could impact upon the ability to
perform the essential duties of the job safely, combined with evidence that
individualized testing is impractical. However, it should be noted that in light of
the new three-step test articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada3, it is no
longer acceptable to rely on presumed group characteristics associated with
2 Mandatory retirement at age 60 for police officers, fire fighters and a Chief Fire Prevention
officer have been found to be a BFR; Large v. Stratford (City), supra, note 14 (Police Officers),
Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Saskatoon (City), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1297 (Chief Fire
Prevention Officer), Hope v. St. Catharines (City) (1998), 9 C.H.R.R. D/4635 (Ont. Bd. Inq.)
(Firefighters).
Mandatory retirement of school bus drivers at age 65 has been found to be a BFR as expert
medical evidence indicated that, as a group, those over 65 are more likely to have accidents, and
that it is impossible to test individually to determine who is likely to have health problems or
create risks for others; MacDonald v. Regional Administrative School Unit No. 1 (1992), 16
C.H.R.R. D/409 (P.E.I. Bd. Inq.).
3 In British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3
S.C.R. 3, the Supreme Court said:
Employers designing workplace standards owe an obligation to be aware of both the
differences between individuals, and differences that characterize groups of individuals.
They must build conceptions of equality into workplace standards. By enacting human
rights statutes and providing that they are applicable to the workplace, the legislatures
have determined that the standards governing the performance of work should be
designed to reflect all members of society, in so far as this is reasonably possible. [at 38]
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
4
aging. An employer seeking to justify mandatory retirement policies will be
required to show that individualized assessment, as a form of accommodation, is
impossible, in the sense that there is no method to do so, or that individualized
assessment represents an undue hardship. Moreover, the British Columbia
Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that mandatory retirement policies should
be approached on a case-by-case basis with the employer bearing the onus of
establishing that its policy is justifiable in the circumstances of its workplace.
Mandatory retirement policies are often incorporated into collective agreements
negotiated between the employer and a union. A large number of Ontarians are
affected by such agreements. The jurisprudence is clear that human rights
cannot be contracted away. If the age 65 limit in the Code is removed, these
policies should be subject to review under the Code.
Employers have often used early retirement packages as an incentive to promote
voluntary exit from the workplace. Such programs can have many benefits to all
workers, and when designed properly (e.g., to ensure that no pressure is applied
to workers, either directly or implicitly, to take such packages) early retirement
schemes are appropriate and will not raise human rights concerns. It is not
retirement policies per se that raise human rights concerns, but the mandatory
nature of some of these policies.
During its consultation, the OHRC heard that if mandatory retirement is
abolished, employers will be obliged to manage performance, and even terminate
older workers who are having difficulty performing job duties. It is said that
mandatory retirement allows individuals who are under-performing to leave the
workforce in a socially acceptable fashion with a level of income security.
However, mandatory retirement should not be a substitute for appropriate
personnel policies such as progressive performance management and ongoing
training. Treating older workers in the same way as co-workers, and evaluating
them on the basis of actual performance rather than age-based assumptions,
best promotes their dignity.
Pensions and Benefits
The protections in the Code extend to pension and benefit plans. Issues
associated with pensions and benefits are often complex as they are governed
by a complicated statutory regime as well as actuarial factors. Section 25 of the
Code contains specific rules for pension and benefit plans. For example,
subsection 25(2) of the Code provides that the right to equal treatment in
employment is not infringed by an employee superannuation or pension plan or
fund or a contract of group insurance between an insurer and an employer that
complies with the Employment Standards Act and its regulations. It is therefore
difficult to make broad statements regarding the application of human rights law
in the area of pensions and benefits.
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
5
The removal of the age 65 cap in the Code could leave a number of standard
pensions and benefits practices vulnerable to human rights challenges, including
age-based limitations on pension contributions, or basing eligibility for pension
benefits on reaching a certain age.
However, it should be noted that not every age-based distinction within pension
and benefit plans will be discriminatory within the meaning of human rights law.
Some age-based criteria or qualifications are not based on stereotypes, are not
offensive to human dignity, and do not target an historically disadvantaged age
group. For example, retirement schemes that are based on a minimum age
combined with years of service and measures aimed at facilitating the transition
from full-time employment to retirement would not likely be considered
discrimination within the meaning of human rights law and policy.4
The reconciliation of Code values with pension and benefits regimes will
therefore require careful consideration.
Impact on OHRC Caseload
Complaints regarding discrimination on the basis of age make up a small but
steadily growing portion of the OHRC’s caseload. In 2002/2003, the OHRC
received 125 complaints citing age as a ground (approximately 7% of all
complaints filed). In 2003/2004, 232 complaints cited age, making up
approximately 9.5% of all complaints filed. The OHRC also receives numerous
inquiries from persons concerned about the effect of mandatory retirement
policies on them. The OHRC anticipates that, should the age 65 cap in the Code
be removed as we are advocating, there will be an increase in the number of
age-related complaints filed with the OHRC. Given the overall increase in the
OHRC’s caseload in recent years, the OHRC does have some concerns
regarding resources to effectively meet any increased demand for its services.
Conclusion
The OHRC heard during its consultations that employees want choice. Abolishing
mandatory retirement should not result in people being penalized if they choose
4 In Broadley v. Steel Co. of Canada Inc. (1991), 15 C.H.R.R. D/408 (Ont. Bd. Inq.), a provision in
a collective agreement that granted employees with 25 years of service extended vacation
benefits beginning at age 61 was challenged on the basis that it discriminated against employees
under age 61. The Board found that this benefit was a special program designed to alleviate the
difficulty older workers often experience in the transition from full employment to full retirement.
The tribunal used a very broad definition of hardship: hardship covers a range of problems
stretching from something “more than mere inconvenience” through “adversity, suffering, or
humiliation” to “extreme privation or difficulty” (at D/411). However, this case was decided prior to
the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and
Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497. Today, a similar scheme could be dealt with by considering
whether it discriminates by making distinctions that are offensive to human dignity.
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
6
to retire prior to the age of 65, or automatically expected to work past the age of
65. Rather, it is intended that older persons be able to make the choice for
themselves of when to leave the workforce, so long as they are capable of
performing their jobs.
The OHRC hopes that this submission will be helpful to the Ministry in bringing
mandatory retirement in Ontario to an end in a fair and effective manner. In
keeping with the OHRC’s commitment to public accountability and its duties in
serving the people of Ontario, this submission will be made public.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by Rockie »

Over the last few days I did a very careful read of the HRTC ruling. It was very thorough and addressed every argument put forth by the Company, ACPA, and those that have appeared here on this forum. In every instance after careful deliberation and testimony from both sides they disagreed with those arguments giving their reasons why, which resulted in the ruling we have today. A sample of what they wrote that pertains to some of the more strident arguments here is below:

IV. DOES THE ELIMINATION OF MANDATORY RETIREMENT CAUSE UNDUE
HARDSHIP TO ACPA?


[131] ACPA and Air Canada agreed to incorporate the age 60 retirement rule into the collective
agreement. ACPA therefore shares a joint responsibility with Air Canada to seek to
accommodate the affected employees (Renaud, para. 26).

[132] ACPA argued that accommodating over 60 pilots would impose a significant and
unreasonable cost on pilots who are under 60 years of age. In particular, ACPA claimed that over
60 pilots are seeking to deny younger pilots the right to move into the highest paid positions at Air
Canada. That difference in salary is measured in tens of thousands of dollars. The denial of the
right to move into the highest paid positions would interfere with the ability of younger pilots to
plan for their retirement.

[133] The evidence does not support the conclusion that younger pilots would be denied the
right to move into the highest paid positions at Air Canada. Rather, the evidence establishes that
if mandatory retirement was removed, there would likely be a delay, not a denial in the career
progression of younger pilots.

[134] Professor Kesselman testified, on the basis of his research, that about three to 10 percent
of the labour force would choose to work past age 65 in jurisdictions that don’t allow mandatory
retirement. If that percentage was applied to Air Canada’s workforce, and one assumes that each
member of that group chose to work an additional three years at Air Canada, an additional one to
four months on average would be added to the working lives of the Air Canada pilots. As a result,
the promotion prospects of younger flight crew members would also be delayed by about one to
four months.

[135] Offset against the delay in career progression would be the fact that the younger pilots
would have the freedom - when they reached age 60 – to work as long as they needed or wished to
work.

Based on what I read and applying good old common sense this is what I predict will happen:

The Company will accept the ruling, but will make submissions establishing the BFOR for retirement at age 65 based on the ICAO age 65, on the grounds that pilots older than that are not employable in an airline like Air Canada. The company will also wait until there is a proven requirement to restrict pairings of both the over 60 and under 60 pilots before suggesting any concrete action out of seniority. The company will also prepare the argument that allowing pre-ruling 60+ pilots to return to the workforce would create undue financial burdens on the company, and will seek some sort of negotiated settlement with the complainants.

The Union will do one of two things. They could also accept the ruling and work with Air Canada to achieve the same goals because in this the two party's interests are the same. Both working together would stand a much better chance of achieving those goals because it would be demonstrating cooperation in complying with the ruling. But that's probably not what the union will do.

Based on past history the union will probably continue to fight this ruling creating further false hope for those that oppose 60+, and that will serve to further divide the pilot group and create even more animosity. While doing that, events will continue to overrun the pilot group as they have up till now, and the details of implementation of this ruling will be dictated to us without our participation in developing a plan. We will be worse off for it.

On that note I am closing out my participation in this discussion for good. The level of animosity and intimidation shown by the anti-60+ people prevents any kind of calm rational discussion, and is the reason the pro-60+ crowd is silent. Openly showing support for this is likely to get your car vandalized at a union meeting. So, what will happen will happen regardless of what I or anybody else on this forum says. We'll just have wait and see how it all pans out.
---------- ADS -----------
 
JazzJetDriver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:20 am

Re: No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

Post by JazzJetDriver »

"Based on past history the union will probably continue to fight this ruling creating further false hope for those that oppose 60+, and that will serve to further divide the pilot group and create even more animosity."

Definitely and ACPA is very good at that...just ask the OCA group.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”