Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

[Rockie]

If our deferred compensation scheme is found to be inappropriate with the elimination of mandatory retirement then modify it as necessary or toss it out completely and get a new system.

You will find absolute consistency in this statement no matter how far back you look Brickhead. You must have me confused with somebody else.

The answer is an alternative that ensures delayed income reaches the rightful owner of the income.

You keep coming up with blanket statements like that but refuse to talk about details. What alternative? And who do you consider the rightful owner?

[Brick Head]

If our deferred compensation scheme is found to be inappropriate with the elimination of mandatory retirement then modify it as necessary or toss it out completely and get a new system.

You will find absolute consistency in this statement no matter how far back you look Brickhead. You must have me confused with somebody else.

In that case my apologies.

The answer is an alternative that ensures delayed income reaches the rightful owner of the income.

You keep coming up with blanket statements like that but refuse to talk about details. What alternative? And who do you consider the rightful owner?

Details? How would I have specific details?

The rightful owner? That one is easy. The contract outlines the rightful owner of the collective wealth. The contract we all agreed to. You know the one?

In the absence of mandatory retirement how do we make sure deferred income reaches its rightful owner? We enforce the intended distribution, of the freely negotiated and collectively agreed upon collective wealth within the CBA, without the use of the present mechanism used to control distribution. We use another mechanism to control distribution.

AKA an alternative to mandatory retirement that effectively preserves the benefit system. Again I don't have a specific solution for you. Think about it. The solutions can be as varied as how creative people want to become. Which raises enormous questions about the viability of this solution moving forward.

Is this really the route law makers want? The route we are being presently being taken down by the Tribunal? Or will they step in and give direction?

[accumulous]

In the absence of mandatory retirement how do we make sure the contractually agreed upon rights of all are respected?

Obviously by negotiating a new contract. So just draft some new numbers and just lay it out in front of all 3000 pilots for a look.

[Rockie]

The rightful owner? That one is easy. The contract outlines the rightful owner of the collective wealth. The contract we all agreed to. You know the one?

Yes. I seem to recall something called a contract, but I'm afraid you will have to spell this one out for me. Who exactly is the rightful owner?

You enforce the intended distribution of the collective wealth within the contract without the use of mandatory retirement.

Again, what exactly is the intended distribution of the collective wealth, and what do you have in mind to accomplish that?

This isn't a hard question Brickhead. Generalities will do. What measures do you envision to redistribute the pay? You never know, we may have the very same thing in mind in which case we're having a spirited agreement.

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

I won't be drawn into specifics wrt alternatives. If you notice I never have.

However your comment about who exactly is the rightful owner should be clear to you. The rightful owner is the individual entitled to a position/pay/benefit based on the present contract including the provisions of mandatory retirement. Again opinion on how we effectively preserve that in the absence of mandatory retirement, is as varied as the amount of people you ask.

Perhaps you would like to add to the chorus of opinion on how the collective wealth's distribution can remain intact (effectively preserved) (find its rightful owner based on the CBA) in the absence of mandatory retirement?

Maybe you are right. Maybe you have the perfect solution.

I know I don't. In my opinion it can't actually be done. This will eventually be reduced to trade offs in my opinion in an effort to achieve some semblance of balancing the competing rights.

Assuming of course mandatory retirement actually becomes illegal for us.

[jazzbeat]

Wow can't believe you guys are still going at it....

if avcanada is the only activity when you are retired, I can now understand why you wanna work to 100 years old

[Rockie]

The rightful owner is the individual entitled to a position/pay/benefit based on the present contract including the provisions of mandatory retirement.

You still haven't come out and said it so forgive me if I don't get this right. Your position (please correct me if I am wrong) is that the rightful owner is according to seniority up to the end of the month that a person turns 60 years of age, which as you say is what the present contract provides for.

If that is the case, I just don't see how you're going to find another way to make an age distinction not an age distinction. If you can you are much more clever than I am.

Assuming of course mandatory retirement actually becomes illegal for us.

It is illegal now in the context of 15(1)c as you know (correction: AC/ACPA will lose every subsequent CHRT challenge because the CHRT may not apply 15(1)c anymore), and the case has not been made yet for a BFOR. How is Air Canada coming along on that?

[Mechanic787]

Why wouldn't a challenge against maintaining mandatory retirement in companies with DB plans be successful?

First, you have to get there. That is a long, arduous process.

Second, you have to meet the tests. The number of cases resulting in the striking down of legislative provisions in the last decade is probably in the dozens, not in the thousands. In this case, the issue would likely come down to two issues, numbers and proportionality.

The number of individuals adversely affected by mandatory retirement that is permitted would be substantially fewer than at present, in the case of the Defined Benefit Plan exemption. The proportionality argument would be much, much problematic, because you are dealing only with people who are, on average, provided some econonic trade-off. Of course there would still be disadvantaged groups, such as females who spend a considerable portion of the adult life out of the workforce, immigrants etc. But those groups are much, much smaller, so the proportionality issue weighs more heavily, and on average, the need is not as great.

Quite simply, you don't want to go there. If any such amendment passes at the Committee hearing on Tuesday, it would be better to let the Bill die through due process than to have it come into force. You are better off with the existing court decisions, by far, than with any watered-down prohibitions.

[Rockie]

I see your point. As a completely useless observation, it's interesting how the process of law can work against both parties. Hence the adage "it's not about fairness, it's about law".

But it beats every other system out there hands down.

[Brick Head]

Quite simply, you don't want to go there. If any such amendment passes at the Committee hearing on Tuesday, it would be better to let the Bill die through due process than to have it come into force. You are better off with the existing court decisions, by far, than with any watered-down prohibitions.

I can't think of any instance where it is preferable to have the courts decide public policy based on myopic mandates, instead of law makers deciding public policy based on what is best for society at large.

If Parliament is to tackle this issue and its broader implications, I am all for it. They are the people elected to set policy. Ducking from issues out of political convenience is not what they were elected to do. It is tiresome actually.

[Understated]

I can't think of any instance where it is preferable to have the courts decide public policy based on myopic mandates, instead of law makers deciding public policy based on what is best for society at large. If Parliament is to tackle this issue and its broader implications, I am all for it. They are the people elected to set policy. Ducking from issues out of political convenience is not what they were elected to do. It is tiresome actually.

I think I am now going to choke. But first I have to ask you this question: how much did ACPA pay its lobbyist from my dues to attend yesterday's hearing? He was seen having an engrossing conversation with the one Member of the Committee who is on track to de-rail this whole Bill. Between ACPA's lobbyist and Air Canada's paid lobbyist witness, democracy didn't get much of a chance yesterday.

Policy based on what is best for society at large, my ass.

[777longhaul]

Brickhead

Please....read my entire post. Especially, the last 3 lines of this post. I am TOTALLY in favour, of getting more money to the new hires, AND the JUNIOR pilots at AC, first and foremost!

==========================================================================================

What are the other unions in AC doing?

F/A do they have anyone flying over age 65?

Maintenance do they have anyone working past their forced retirement?

Management?

Agents?

Others?

I hear that we are going to status pay on this contract, anyone know about that? It will be a quick lesson on how to screw yourself, out of even more money, to the benefit of AC and the super elite in management. The savings, WILL not go to the junior pilot's, no matter what bs you are told. Think about the 787 coming, and pilots (CA FO RP) bidding down, not up. Do you really want to go that route? Average F/O and average CA pay. It's like selling the wheels off of your car to buy gas. Pulling the top pay down, in all 3 seats, to fill a temporary up in the others, is a long term mistake. Always, build up the pay, never average it down. This contract needs to get more money and lots of it, into the hands of the new hires, and the junior ranks. Then more into the middle, and finally, some into the seniors. If you pull the top pay down, you will live to regret it.

[777longhaul]

Brick Head

I am not dissing Localizer. I am trying to show, that he/she is not an AC pilot, and he/she is posting on issues that he/she is not fully aware of. I do not put my two bits worth into Jazz issues, as I am not a Jazz employee/pilot etc.
I have no problem with anyone posting, that is their right, just keep it civilized, respectfull, and informative for all to read and consider.

Jazz goes to 65, and they did it years ago, without much fan fare, wonder why AC/acpa can not get there???

Thank you for referring to us as Gentlemen.

Gentlemen,

To begin I obviously have no idea where this will end up, or if it won't hit a snag, other than if the legislation passes there will be a line in the sand at some point in the future, to provide warning and an orderly transition for all involved. That in itself IMO is the very least the government should be providing.

As for the debate going on on the hill? And here? This issue keeps coming back to the same one. The one you guys vehemently refuse to acknowledge. The issue that is much larger than all of us. The socioeconomic benefit to society of deferred compensation systems and how to address the issue in the absence of mandatory retirement.

Contrary to the opinion on this board which is individualist, the effects on society, what is best for society in general, the young, the retired, is actually important, and should be to Parliament.

Yes Rockie and longhaul777 the young do matter to society as they are critical to stability. Your dissing of Localizer is exactly what is wrong with your approach to this issue. Your message is they don't matter. In the larger societal context your message reads like young people in general don't matter. In fact they do matter. They are critical.

an example.

A sudden drop in retirements in a skilled profession leads to. Young people stop entering the profession because there are no job opportunities, which leads to. The inevitable retirement of those skilled workers, which leads to. A shortage of skilled replacement workers due to the vacuum left by no one entering the profession.

The above amounts to bad Government policy. It is something Ontario will be grappling with in the near future as it pertains to teachers in particular.

What is required is a considered, thoughtful, balanced approach. Not an approach which discards what is best for society in favor of individual rights.

[777longhaul]

Brick Head

from your previous post:

"What is required is a considered, thoughtful, balanced approach. Not an approach which discards what is best for society in favor of individual rights.

So, you are saying that by all the other airlines in Canada, that go to 65, or longer, and did so long ago, which also, includes Jazz, and WestJet, that they are not doing what is best for society? That means, that only AC/acpa, is doing what is best for society? If that is the case, then you should be working day and night to get all the other airlines, to change back to a mandatory retirement age that is the same as the forced one, at AC.

Remember the court ordered, certified, BFOR test, AC only employes aprx. 43% of the pilots in Canada. That does not represent the pilot society in general.

[accumulous]

What is required is a considered, thoughtful, balanced approach. Not an approach which discards what is best for society in favor of individual rights.

‘Policy Pimps’ or Lobbyists have been around as long as the ‘oldest profession’. Their appearance on Thursday had to have been expected. Where there’s a policy gathering, there will always be the bloodhounds of a special interest group. That's politics, isn't it?

In this case our very own ‘special interest group’ allegedly due to make an appearance on Tuesday, already has a few major hits against it including a formal ruling of Discrimination, with one down and a bunch on deck.

We’ve been hard at work for almost 8 years shooting holes through the feet of over 3000 pilots. Being the only act of its kind on stage on Tuesday in juxtaposition to all the other airlines in North America, the Canadian public would have to be in a coma to miss it.

When the really pertinent, serious questions are asked, the public will have a face to put to the issue. They generally side with the Law.

It would be a stretch to assume that a couple of policy salesmen could trump the futures of close to a million Federally regulated employees. FEDCO did make some interesting points with regard to concerns over the vagaries of implementation but the presentation was so entirely transparent, especially sitting right beside the Human Rights Commission, there’s no doubt that in the context of unanimous 100% support on second reading, the real adults on the Committee will have all the transparency ammo they need on Tuesday to show a million Federal employees the real picture. They should be selling tickets to the show.

[vic777]

Or will they step in and give direction?

Brick Head, Brick Head, surely you don't want "direction", from a bureaucrat on how we should divide the "collective pie". Brick Head, we can do this ourselves ... it's not rocket science ... we are mature adults. Why don't you think about it for a few days and come up with what you consider a fair Flat Pay/Status Pay system, where the Company pays in total more than they are paying now. There should be a massive increase to the collective pie due to the massive windfall gains the Company will realize do to FlyPast60.

[Localizer]

This isn't just an Air Canada issue ... There are currently 2 retired Jazz pilots using the V&K ruling to help catapult their own case into the spotlight, they seek their seats and seniority back.

I can't argue if the desire is to bump retirement up to 65 like most other airlines, but I can't support the FTYD campaign.

[accumulous]

There should be a massive increase to the collective pie due to the massive windfall gains the Company will realize do to FlyPast60.

That doesn’t appear to be the issue.
The issue is:
1. 700 scheduled retirements in 5 years – stop them from coming back, then end mandatory retirement so 2900 pilots can go past 60 to max years pension from a position 700 numbers farther up the list.
2. If you can’t stop it, manage it.
3. If you can’t manage it, delay it.
4. Net result, Discrimination.
5. Verdict, Discrimination.
6. Retired pilots return.

I can't argue if the desire is to bump retirement up to 65 like most other airlines, but I can't support the FTYD campaign.

That’s about 6 years too late. Transport Canada makes the rules. Our association threw out the entire kitchen, never mind the sink, all orchestrated amid 6 years of clear warnings.

And now, with a verdict of Discrimination on two counts under the belt, and facing at least 150 additional counts of Discrimination, we’re proposing to suit up and stroll into, of all places, Parliament, just like nothing happened, and explain to Parliament how this whole gig should be operated, of all things, in a Mandatory Retirement Committee, in the middle of the very venue within which we've already been summarily nailed.

[777longhaul]

Mechanic 787

Thank you for your excellent posts, please keep them coming!!!

[vic777]

I can't argue if the desire is to bump retirement up to 65 like most other airlines, but I can't support the FTYD campaign.

Nobody of course supports FTYD, nobody ever did. The FAA when they approved FP60 said they would use the next Five years to determine what the "correct" retirement age should be. When the FAA determine the "correct" retirement age and the protocol etc., we will adopt their findings and rules. HINT ... buy a treadmill and cut down on the booze. Those opposing the NWO just aren't following events or rely on only one biased source for their information.

And this "deferred payment" canard, we don't have a "deferred payment system", that's why we call it a formula pay system. If AC got rid of the wide bodies ... there'd be no deferred pay. If we had all one type there'd be no deferred pay. If you chose to fly domestic, there is no deferred pay. It's a formula pay system, that's why we call it formula pay. We can change the formula any time AC sucks us into doing it. There is a better system, namely Flat Pay/Status Pay and with all the windfall profits accruing to AC as a result of FP60 there is much more money in the system. We can implement a Flat Pay/Status Pay system now which will vastly increase the lifetime take home pay of all Pilots. But who is running the store? Do they have the best interest of all Pilots in mind or just a certain elite?

[Brick Head]

777Longhaul,

Sorry for not responding sooner. I went back and re read your posts and you are correct. My apologies you are not dissing young people. Quite the contrary.

However your understanding of deferred compensation is in error.

Brick Head

from your previous post:

"What is required is a considered, thoughtful, balanced approach. Not an approach which discards what is best for society in favor of individual rights.

So, you are saying that by all the other airlines in Canada, that go to 65, or longer, and did so long ago, which also, includes Jazz, and WestJet, that they are not doing what is best for society? That means, that only AC/acpa, is doing what is best for society?

Jazz has a pension now but did not for the longest time. Today it would be considered a deferred compensation system. Deferred compensation systems end load a specific age for the purpose of larger pension. It can be any age. 60, 65, 70. Our system is on steroids but that does not mean other systems that are not as steep don't meet the definition of deferred compensation. Simply put deferred compensation is the act of paying below the worth of your productivity when you start. Above the worth of your productivity at the end for the purpose of your best 5 years and a larger pension. It is manifested most often in pay scales that increase with tenure. Ours is 12 years. We also have Captain/FO scales, and equipment scales (the formula pay you refer to) making us unique from many other workers, and leads to a system on steroids.

Westjet does not have a pension and wouldn't be considered deferred compensation.

There is a lot of reference to deferred compensation systems within the evidence brought to the Tribunal. What has become very apparent is the underwhelming amount of knowledge each us display about a key ingredient in this debate. An ingredient that has a socioeconomic history of decades and which has repeatedly been recognized as important by the courts. In fact the federal court in its latest ruling declared the system, as still pressing and substantial in society during its evaluation of the Oak's test. This is of key importance.

In short deferred compensation systems are real, we have one, and they are still important to society. The court says so.

Brick Head, Brick Head, surely you don't want "direction", from a bureaucrat on how we should divide the "collective pie". Brick Head, we can do this ourselves ... it's not rocket science ... we are mature adults. Why don't you think about it for a few days and come up with what you consider a fair Flat Pay/Status Pay system, where the Company pays in total more than they are paying now. There should be a massive increase to the collective pie due to the massive windfall gains the Company will realize do to FlyPast60.

The direction desired from bureaucrats is direction on how we can protect our deferred compensation systems in the absence of mandatory retirement. Mandatory retirement is the mechanism the makes sure the collective wealth is distributed as intended and that delayed income reaches the rightful owner of the pay. If the system is still important to society as stated by the courts, but mandatory retirement can no longer be used, then direction should be the responsibility of lawmakers. Lawmakers with a view to the big picture sort of speak, rather than through the narrow mandates of the court.

The issue of a status pay system has been going on for as long as we have had formula pay. The benefit/problems are a different debate and one left for the membership to decide. I think you will find that even Raymond Hall thinks that instituting flat pay is shooting ourselves in the foot. I agree with him particularly because when the best 5 drop, so does the pension benefit, but it is another debate.

I will just leave the status pay issue with this. It is still a deferred compensation system. A system not on steroids of course. It still has increased pay with tenure and still produces a pension. One aircraft type would still be deferred compensation.

However even though it is a deferred compensation system it would still represent a partial dismantlement of our present system. It is not something that would be viewed as preserving the present benefit system. The courts have repeatedly pointed to "alternatives" to effectively preserve the benefit system in the absence of mandatory retirement.

How do we "preserve" is extremely contentious. I am not really sure it is possible to even do, yet it is the direction so far taken by the courts.

So yes I welcome Parliaments intervention. If this is still important to society as I believe, and as stated by the courts thus far? If they are not comfortable with the direction taken thus far by the courts to "preserve" the socioeconomic benefits of a system that has been in place for decades? Then yes it is their responsibility to step in.

If it means politicians are engaged through lobbyists, in an effort to make sure concerns are heard about the future of this legitimately recognized socioeconomic benefit, then so be it. That is how the system works.

[777longhaul]

BRICK HEAD

You have to much on your plate. THIS IS NOT MY QUOTE.

Quote from your previous post:

777longhaul wrote:
Brick Head, Brick Head, surely you don't want "direction", from a bureaucrat on how we should divide the "collective pie". Brick Head, we can do this ourselves ... it's not rocket science ... we are mature adults. Why don't you think about it for a few days and come up with what you consider a fair Flat Pay/Status Pay system, where the Company pays in total more than they are paying now. There should be a massive increase to the collective pie due to the massive windfall gains the Company will realize do to FlyPast60.

END

[Brick Head]

vic777 ...........777longhaul

I'm trying not to attribute things to you that you didn't say. Honest.

Thanks for the correction. I'll fix it.

[777longhaul]

Brick Head

It looks like you, and others want STATUS PAY. Seems to be the theme.

What happens when AC is broken into 2 parts, Domestic, and International, all in the interest of the travelling public. There will be narrow bodies, and widebodies. The Domestic pay will not be averaged off of the wide bodies. You are going down the wrong path big time. Build all the pay up, and up, not averaged down and down.

Get more money, and get it into the hands of the new hires, as the starting wage at AC is a complete joke, and more money into the juniors, and the get rid of the 5% narrow body penalty, and the fing pay group issue, that was put in, well....we all know why that was put in by the previous MEC's, and other related crazy seniority insanity, like blending the 777/787 pay etc etc etc etc.

When you have done something like this, then you have really done something for the pilot society as a whole. Until then, all that is happening, is discrimination, based on forced retirement.

Status pay is a sell out, that gives a temporary fix to certain groups in the co. The next crazy idea from this, will be to freeze pilots in Status pay, aircraft position, for years, so that they have to stay where they are, not where they can bid. acpa, DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY to capture the temporary/longterm perceived savings in time, to get it to the pilots who are junior.

What happens when AC is broken into 2 companies? It is coming, or just prior to that, a take over by an American/Euorpean conglomerate?

[Brick Head]

Brick Head

It looks like you, and others want STATUS PAY. Seems to be the theme.

I am opposed to status pay. I agree with you

But yes many on here think it is a cure all for all the age 60 issues before us.