ywger wrote:You'll recall that the membership overwhelmingly voted in favour of defending our mandatory retirement policy. This is why ACPA is defending it so vehemently. Even if you don't understand it, there is huge support for defending it, so defend it we shall. I may be idealistic here, but I still give the high courts credit when it comes to smelling a rat in the spirit of this initiative. We may not defeat the flytilyadie initiative completely, but we won't allow ourselves to be rolled over either.
Understated - wow, for all of your implied wisdom on the ways of the world, you're surprisingly obtuse. … Regardless of what you think, this will all go down with many shades of gray. Neither side will be entirely happy, but it certainly is not the slam dunk you think it will be.
Obtuse? Excuse me? Me, obtuse? Are you not capable of seeing anything obvious? The precious contract that you voted overwhelmingly to defend is
illegal. So while you are continuing to defend it, it is getting more illegal every day, for one illegitimate reason after another, including the impending repeal of the "conditional" exemption clause that permitted mandatory retirement in the first place. The exemption clause that allowed mandatory retirement under the extremely limited conditions that ACPA and Air Canada no longer meet. The exemption clause that you took to be cast in stone that allowed ACPA to “negotiate” the pay scale under the alleged deferred compensation system.
Even the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice are against our contract, in addition to every other Member of Parliament, the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Tribunal. Have you noticed? Vilven and Kelly are back at work, even though both are over age 65. Full seniority. Full salary. Limited only by ICAO restrictions re pilots-in-command over age 65. Damages of over $125,000 payable to each, a large portion of which comes from my union dues. Obtuse? There are 150 pilots behind them in the reinstatement and damages queue. Do you think that their outcomes will be any different? Why should I be forced to pay and pay for something that should never have happened in the first place, let alone that should have ended once the court and the Tribunal declared our contract illegal?
The Bill that is pending before Parliament allows no discretion whatsoever to allow the high courts to, as you say, “smell a rat in the spirit of this initiative.” It is intended to change the way 840,000 employees are governed under their collective agreements, so that they are treated identically to the way their fellow union members in the provincial jurisdictions are treated.
Except for ACPA, of course. Better sign up a couple of Members of Parliament right away to introduce the ACPA amendment prior to third reading in the House of Commons. Time is running short. Everyone in the country needs to know that this deferred compensation scheme under the ACPA contract is inviolate, and that the whole country must adapt to our unwillingness to ever reconsider our own special interests that flow counter to all the human rights law in the country.
So that you can persuade our union to spend my union dues paying lawyers and paying damages to those who want their union to comply with the law. So that you can continue upholding your right to disbelieve that it is
you who must adjust. Thanks. Let me enjoy my obtuse solitude in peace.
When the first complaint arose years ago, the original complainant wanted only what his counterparts at Air Canada Jazz enjoyed—the right to work to age 65. The whole dispute could likely have been settled with a reinstatement agreement signed by your precious ACPA, to allow him to do only that. To work to age 65. No litigation.
Denying that, however, in the name of “defending the contract,” you have accomplished wonders. Look at the results. No age limit for pilots, whatsoever. Most likely, a general declaration by the Federal Court that the mandatory retirement exemption is unconstitutional. In any event, repeal of the exemption that will end mandatory retirement in the entire federal jurisdiction. According to yesterday’s Newsletter, nine legal proceedings, including a criminal investigation of ACPA by the RCMP. Congratulations. Obtuse? Get real.
Congratulate your (my) union—it deserves a lot of credit. 840,000 employees can thank it for helping them move forward to ending federal legislative restrictions that placed their contracts out of synch with the contracts of all their provincial counterparts. Brilliant work, ACPA. I can’t wait to see how ACPA improves our pay and contractual provisions in the current set of negotiations.
Oh, yes, one other thing, ywger. Please tell ACPA to keep defending that contract, and to not pay any attention whatsoever to reality. The membership is solidly behind it. We can easily afford another couple of million or so in damages and a lot more dissention among our membership. It will put us in good spirit for the pending breakdown in contract negotiations, when Air Canada invariably imposes upon ACPA and us its own version of economic reality.
but I am not sure that even I could get all of the ACPA ponies pulling in the same direction at the same time. Still, I applaud your suggestion. In my opinion, The AC pilots achieved the most collectively and were more respected when they existed within and, for the most part, lead the CALPA structure. Perhaps that was because there was balance to every debate or perhaps because ideas and initiatives were better vetted before they saw the light of day.
