Mandatory Retirement to be Eliminated in Parliament

[Brick Head]

Instead of wasting money fighting the age change, ACPA should get their actuarial consultants to come up with a proposal that will get some benefit out of the change.

Some benefit out of the change? That is not acceptable.

We currently have a right to protect the current system with mandatory retirement. It is enshrined in law, with purpose. The purpose is to force the benefit to be pasted on a specific point. The tribunal has suggested alternatives to do the same thing.

[Rockie]

No matter what you and I believe will eventually happen to 15(1)c of the CHRA, at this very moment mandatory retirement is perfectly legal. It has a purpose enshrined by current law. The Tribunal must respect that.

No, mandatory retirement is not legal because it has been judged discriminatory. Don't forget that every jurisdiction has rejected their equivalent of 15(1)(c) and tossed it out. The CHRT is not blazing a new trail here with this case, it is the same everywhere in Canada. 15(1)(c) no longer applies because it has been deemed discriminatory, and the only thing that remains is to remove it from the books.

In that regard it is no different than any other out of date law that is not enforced even though nobody has gotten around to removing it yet.

The tribunal is not required in any way to respect that clause because it is out of date with where the country is now. Furthermore they were specifically instructed by the Federal Court to determine if the clause violated the overriding right of people to not be discriminated against due to age. The CHRT did that. The only thing remaining is to remove it from the books.

[Brick Head]

No, mandatory retirement is not legal because it has been judged discriminatory in our case. Why? what was the logic?

Don't forget that every jurisdiction has rejected their equivalent of 15(1)(c) and tossed it out. The CHRT is not blazing a new trail here with this case, it is the same everywhere in Canada. 15(1)(c) no longer applies because it has been deemed discriminatory, and the only thing that remains is to remove it from the books.

No. In other jurisdictions the law makers repealed it. That has not happened federally as of yet. Human rights Tribunals enforce the law. they do not pick and choose.

The tribunal is not required in any way to respect that clause because it is out of date with where the country is now.

Until changed by law makers or struck by the Sup court? Yes they do.

Furthermore they were specifically instructed by the Federal Court to determine if the clause violated the overriding right of people to not be discriminated against due to age.

[/quote]

And they came to their decision based on what rational?

No matter how much you kick your feet, and slam your fists, it does not change the fact that this ruling is not everything you apparently thought it was.

The Tribunal must follow the CHRA. Presently mandatory retirement is perfectly legal. Mandatory retirement has a specific purpose. The Tribunal did not rule mandatory retirement illegal. THEY HAVE NO SUCH JURISTICTION. They ruled why infringe on a protected right when alternatives can accomplish the same thing.

Mandatory retirements purpose is clear. It forces individuals to live up to their responsibility to pass on the benefit at a specific point. Any alternative will need to do the same thing.

[Rockie]

Brick Head

Why has every jurisdiction except Canada gotten rid of that provision, and why is Canada itself in the process of getting rid of it?

When has a law ever been changed before the government thought it was necessary?

You need to step back and look at this from a wider perspective.

[Max111]

Rockie....You are wasting your good time...Brickhead is from another planet.....He's drank the cool-aide................only he doesn't know it.

Max111

[Brick Head]

MMMM. Coolaid good. Want some? Really good.

Attacking a person rather than the issues during debate? usually a sign that you have no idea how to respond.

Brick Head

Why has every jurisdiction except Canada gotten rid of that provision, and why is Canada itself in the process of getting rid of it?

When has a law ever been changed before the government thought it was necessary?

You need to step back and look at this from a wider perspective.

You don't seem to realize I agree with much of what you have say. The end of mandatory retirement is coming. Sooner or later it is coming. Yes Federally we are lagging. Big picture wise I absolutely agree.

But that is irrelevant wrt the facts, as they are presented in this specific ruling, here and now, under current legislation.

This is just my opinion but I think much of this dispute goes back to not understanding the roots of our present benefit system. Why mandatory retirement is in the CHRA? What is its purpose? How does if fulfill is purpose? Not understanding the system because one thinks it is irrelevant, since they are solely focused on the charter aspect of the question, has resulted in people not understanding what the implications of alternatives to 15(1)c are. How can one understand what alternatives to mandatory retirement means, unless you understand what its intended purpose is?

Once you understand that the purpose of mandatory retirements is to force people to pass on the benefit at a specific point in time? You also understand that any alternative would somehow need to do the same thing.

Like I said a page earlier. All I see is a mess at the moment.

[DocAV8R]

Brick Head

You seem so stuck on the idea that having a choice to go past 60 will destroy the present compensation system. The logic is flawed and the math does not follow. With over 3000 pilots, the average age will not change significantly when a few people elect to stay longer. Just as it doesn`t change significantly when a few people die early in their 40`s as they have in the past 12 months. Having a few people chose to stay longer, and you claim that they are in the minority and would only stay a short while, would not in any way destroy your precious system, any more than having a few of the guys in their 40`s not die untimely deaths would. Every year some pilots leave early for a variety of reasons. Having a few stay a bit longer, would not even offset the changes to the system that a few leaving early has. It takes large numbers to change averages. There is no problem except in your own mind. Even ACPA in its own reports said there was `No Problem``.

The system will survive, if that`s what you want. No need for any change when pilots are allowed to exercise their rights to stay longer. NONE. Not everyone left at 60 before, so no problem if they don`t all leave at 60 now. A month or 2 initially of slower progression perhaps - Such is the price of progress. Then the system resumes as it has, with some leaving before 60, some at 60, and now a few after 60. No big deal!

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Unless you believe that everyone will opt to stay forever, then clearly the union is on the wrong side. No one will stay forever- that pill hasn`t been invented yet. The financial impact report ACPA published is similarly flawed and has been proven to be pure rubbish in court. It is further proof that the UNION does not want its members to know the truth. The leadership has its own agenda which it has been forcing on the unwitting troops. Keeping everyone in the dark in order to allow this to continue is irresponsible and disrespectful to the members.

Why Air Canada and ACPA continue to throw hundreds of thousands at this lost issue is beyond any logical explanation that I can see. The lawyers get rich, the union will be very poor, and AC will try for bankruptcy again if they keep making dumb decisions like this. Though belonging to a vulture fund which has bled out all the assets and having a hatchet man as the CEO does not bode well for any long term planning for this company. Maybe there is more that is being hidden from the troops.

[Brick Head]

The evidence presented by the expert witnesses point to 62 ish as to what the average age of retirement will become. Even yours does.

This is simple. 1 777 CA times 2 extra years = $XX in their pocket.

Please feel free to explain how that can take place while preserving the present benefit for everyone else?

Does a magical bunny show up with a pot of money?

[Rockie]

The evidence presented by the expert witnesses point to 62 ish as to what the average age of retirement will become. Even yours does.

This is simple. 1 777 CA times 2 extra years = $XX in their pocket.

Please feel free to explain how that can take place while preserving the present benefit for everyone else?

Does a magical bunny show up with a pot of money?

When that 1 777 CA goes by the name of Brick Head then you'll finally figure out the answer to that question. Please don't say you won't stay past 60 because unless you're already retired you don't know, and you'll just be blowing hot air like everybody else who swears the same thing. But if you do leave at 60 that's your choice, and no different than someone choosing to leave a 58 now.

Why are you still arguing this? Deferred compensation can stay...mandatory retirement cannot. Any change in employment status based on age simply to protect your idea of deferred compensation is a non-starter.

[Brick Head]

When that 1 777 CA goes by the name of Brick Head then you'll finally figure out the answer to that question. Please don't say you won't stay past 60 because unless you're already retired you don't know, and you'll just be blowing hot air like everybody else who swears the same thing. But if you do leave at 60 that's your choice, and no different than someone choosing to leave a 58 now.

Good point. But that can be accomplished without harming all those that follow this can't it. Why would I want to harm others? Am I special?

Why are you still arguing this?

Why is what was negotiated on your behalf not enough? Why do you insist on taking more?

Deferred compensation can stay...mandatory retirement cannot. Any change in employment status based on age simply to protect your idea of deferred compensation is a non-starter.

Sorry bud. The Tribunal made this about alternative's to mandatory retirement when the decided to work around the fact that 15(1)c is still within the CHRA What was the purpose of mandatory retirement again? So the alternative, to be considered an alternative, must accomplish the same thing right? Discriminatory you say? No alternatives you say?

Trash Bin.

Make up your mind. Which one do you want. Alternatives or Trash bin?

[Rockie]

In the first place they don't think anything needs to be done to preserve the deferred compensation scheme. As far as they're concerned (and they're right too) it can continue unchanged despite mandatory retirement being done away with.

In the second, they will never allow another form of age discrimination to preserve your idea of deferred compensation. It isn't necessary for one, and it's illegal for two.

End of discussion I think however much you want it to be.

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

I understand what you are saying. But your position has a problem. A very big problem. 15(1)c is still in the CHRA. The Tribunal must enforce the act. They can not pick and choose. They can not ignore, nor did they ignore, that mandatory retirement is still perfectly legal. What they chose to do instead , is come to the conclusion that if alternatives can do the job, why infringe on a protected right.

Mandatory retirement is still a perfectly legal way to force individuals to pass the benefit. This ruling applies to us only. It has no bearing as of yet on say, Jazz, WJ, Transat, Rail workers or any other federal employee where mandatory retirement continues unabated. The Tribunal has said we are required to use an alternative to mandatory retirement, to force people to pass on the benefit. Why? Because we have every right to force individuals to pass the benefit under the present legislation. They did not, and can not, remove that right while 15(1)c is in the CHRA. The best they can do is order us to do it another way, which is exactly what has been happening in Provincial jurisdictions with the use of alternatives.

Again. As long as 15(1)c remains in the CHRA, ACPA has every right to force individuals to pass the benefit at a prescribed time. The question is now how do we do that if not with mandatory retirement?

What do you propose we do? What method would you use to force individuals to pass on the benefit in the absence of mandatory retirement?

Or do you believe it can not be done without further discrimination?

I ask because every argument you make points to the idea that you do not think this ruling is doable. Either we maintain our legal right to force individuals to pass the benefit, at a fixed point, as is enshrined presently in 15(1)c of the CHRA, or the Tribunal pooched it.

Only Parliament or the Sup court can eliminate 15(1)c and it intended purpose.

How can the appellate courts allow remedy to be forced upon the respondents, if that remedy does not allow what the respondents have every right to do under the current legislation.

As for the Tribunal and what actions they will take? I have no idea because I have no idea if they chose this route, the route of alternatives, eyes wide open. I don't know if they clearly understood just how severe the alternatives would need to be, and the drastic consequences should no alternatives be permitted.

On the other hand perhaps that is exactly why they selected AC pilots for this.

At the end of the day the Tribunal may well wish, as we may, that they had just changed the normal age of retirement higher and waited for Federal Legislation to catch up with society. On the other hand if the politicians don't act then their next best course of action is just what they are doing now. Create a ruling that heads to the sup court.

I can not predict the final outcome. I can however say that it is reasonable to believe that the final outcome is a ways off. What I can not see the appellate courts doing, is forcing AC to adjust to every twist and turn that happens to the ruling, or to its remedy as it passes through the appeals process. IOW a stay.

[Rockie]

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from with your argument as well Brick Head, but I think you're pinning too much hope on it. I think the Federal Court and CHRT are going to tell ACPA and Air Canada to pound sand with that 15(1)(c) argument (in the most diplomatic and polite terms of course) because they do not consider it valid or consistent with Canadian values anymore. For that reason they will not compel the CHRT to consider it because it is gone from every jurisdiction in Canada, and soon to be gone federally as well.

Even if they did, it would be an embarrassment for them and they would pull out the stops to rush the bill through parliament and be done with it for good. End result is the same for ACPA and Air Canada.

You see that. I see that. In fact it seems everybody sees that except ACPA and Air Canada. Otherwise why would they still be putting everything into fighting this battle when the war has clearly been lost?