vic777 wrote:Now of course if everyone since August 2009 can be reinstated you have nothing (much) to gain.
Unless, after the legal process is completed, some of the litigants are now too old to come back (either by choice, or due to medical or competency issues) in which case it minimizes the damage (and I see this damage as reverse age discrimination) that is imposed on the junior pilots.
On top of that, none of you have proved that ACPA or AC are liable for anything right now other than what was in the V&K remedy...we will have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt that future damages will be anything close to what the current litigants are seeking.
vic777 wrote:Now of course if everyone since August 2009 can be reinstated you have nothing (much) to gain.
Unless, after the legal process is completed, some of the litigants are now too old to come back (either by choice, or due to medical or competency issues) in which case it minimizes the damage (and I see this damage as reverse age discrimination) that is imposed on the junior pilots.
On top of that, none of you have proved that ACPA or AC are liable for anything right now other than what was in the V&K remedy...we will have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt that future damages will be anything close to what the current litigants are seeking.
Then your strategy looks better and better ... I knew that the ACPA elite wouldn't risk the strike fund and huge damages unless they had a carefully thought out plan that would benefit themselves first and foremost. I guess when the dust settles, the biggest winner will be the most Senior Sixty Year Old.
vic777 wrote:Now of course if everyone since August 2009 can be reinstated you have nothing (much) to gain.
Unless, after the legal process is completed, some of the litigants are now too old to come back (either by choice, or due to medical or competency issues) in which case it minimizes the damage (and I see this damage as reverse age discrimination) that is imposed on the junior pilots.
Competency is another interesting point of litigation. Of all the returning original litigants only 50% have successfully completed the training program. The negotiated "train to standard" clause that was the result of the strike (which also got us a pair of shoes) is going to bite both the union and the company in the ass. Both have to tread carefully as not to invoke another claim of discrimination but at the same time train to standard. Must be a very awkward position for trainers put in this situation. Risk pushing someone through who doesn't demonstrate the required competency and end up with a smoking hole or continue to fail someone and risk more litigation of unfair discrimination. So much for safety first.
New hires on probation get one chance to get it right. How many tries with the FTYD group get until the company says this train to standard is costing us too much money?
Vic, I am still awaiting a response to how you plan to galvanize this fractured group and demand a windfall from the company with your NWO. Do you actually have the ball rolling on this or is it rhetoric?
Problem is that the contract and benefits associated with the CBA has been totally ignored in this entire process. If train to standard is viewed as discriminatory the company and union wont terminate the candidate. Wonder what the media would think of that?
We are essentially operating under a lame duck contract as this one has been shredded by these developments and is completely irrelevant now.
yycflyguy wrote:
Vic, I am still awaiting a response to how you plan to galvanize this fractured group and demand a windfall from the company with your NWO. Do you actually have the ball rolling on this or is it rhetoric?
I would like to see an estimate from ACPA as to how much the windfall gains amount too. What would your estimate be? For the group to be galvanized, we must accept the courts decision and "move forward", against the common enemy.
yycflyguy wrote:
Vic, I am still awaiting a response to how you plan to galvanize this fractured group and demand a windfall from the company with your NWO. Do you actually have the ball rolling on this or is it rhetoric?
I would like to see an estimate from ACPA as to how much the windfall gains amount too. What would your estimate be? For the group to be galvanized, we must accept the courts decision and "move forward", against the common enemy.
Gentlemen (I assume), how about if we move all discussion about training, including Train To Standard, to a separate thread? Regardless of whether some pilots ace every exercise of flub almost every exercise, this thread is not about licence qualifications. It is not about specific individuals, including any of the individuals who are the subject of other issues here. You don't need to be 60 or 65 to screw up a ride. Take my word for it. I have done it.
What we are dealing with in this thread is an age discrimination issue that is distinct from any of the personalities involved. Let's stick to that topic, and keep discussion about our contract and the standards required within that contract regarding competency separate and distinct from the subjects that are in issue here. The other issues are more than accounted for within the exisitng system of checks and balances, and do not need to be debated in the context of contractual mandatory retirement.
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.
You don't have to be a FP60 guy to not want a pay cut. 777longhaul is correct which is one of the reasons modifying the pay scheme would take time and several consecutive contracts. Nobody senior is going to be in favour of a pay cut regardless of how they feel about retirement age, and for the most part changes (if deemed necessary) will have to be accomplished by filling up from the bottom.
MackTheKnife wrote:ACPA's ridiculous "fight to the bitter death"
HA! .. Who's fighting to the bitter death???? ..
777longhaul wrote: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.
Gawd forbid a junior guy get a break in this industry .. especially when all the senior pilots want nothing more then to keep the juniors - junior. This once again re-enforces the entire FTYD groups position to me .. pure f*cking greed. I love to fly! That's why I'm fighting to keep my job ... just don't change the present pay structure!!! ..
Love the guy with the label 777 long haul trying to argue against status pay! Let me guess, also pro work till ya die.
I can't really blame you for your mushroom mentality. Your lack of understanding on the history and pro's and con's of the pay structure and complete disregard for basic human rights only reflects the vacuum at the top of ACPA.
---------- ADS -----------
Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it !!!
Hi Rockie, you always make a lot of sense and your comments are obviously carefully thought out but, I'm thinking everyone has presented their arguments at least two or three times. Maybe there is nothing more to be said until the ruling comes out. Then maybe there will be a topic shift. Maybe we are just feeding the TROLLS, what say you?
I'm sure your right. I was just trying to understand where Localizer's point of view comes from. Many of his posts indicate he works for Jazz, but I could be wrong. Jazz does not force people to retire at 60, hence my puzzlement over his attitude.
Please, read my previous post, (last 3 lines) I am VERY MUCH IN-FAVOUR of putting the most money into the new hires, and juniors. You think that is wrong? Thats what you indicated, want to reconsider?
Another step towards ending mandatory retirement is nearing completion: the Parliamentary Committee deliberating Bill C-481 (to repeal the mandatory retirement exemption) today heard testimony from a number of witnesses, including George Vilven and Neil Kelly, as well as Professor Kesselman, who was the Coalition’s expert witness in the Thwaites hearing.
Also testifying were David Langtry, Acting Chief Commissioner, CHRC, Philippe Dufresne, Director and Sr. Counsel, Litigation Services Division, CHRC, and Mr. John Farrell, Executive Directof of an organization called Federal Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications (FETCO).
All witnesses, including the witness speaking on behalf of the employers, spoke in favour of the Bill. The only changes suggested to the proposed legislation concerned aspects of the implementation of the proposed changes, including the date of coming into force of the repeal and the potential ability to increase professional and medical testing for workers' competency in safety-sensitive organizations, such as the trucking industry (a test already met by Transport Canada regulation of pilot licensing).
There will be one more meeting of the Committee. It is scheduled for next Tuesday. The Committee will hear from a small number of additional witnesses, including Ms. Susan Eng, VP, Advocacy, Canadian Association of Retired Persons. It is also expected that one witness will appear from the Department of National Defence, regarding allowing the military to maintain its exemption, by way of regulation, from the strict abandonment of the mandatory retirement exemption.
The Committee Chair ended today's meeting by suggesting that Members of the Committee bring any proposed amendments to the Bill to the final meeting, next Tuesday, so that the amendments can be voted on, and the amended Bill moved back to Parliament for Third Reading and passage. That could occur within the next two to three weeks, depending on the Parliamentary agenda, but in any event before any vote takes placed on the Budget (that could end this session of Parliament), expected late next month.
There's a very interesting twist in there. FETCO, that speaks on behalf of federally regulated companies in the transportation and communications industries, including Air Canada, spoke in favour of the Bill? Yet Air Canada is still fighting the abolition of mandatory retirement through the judicial process? That's like speaking out of both sides of one's mouth, isn't it? Are they for the change or against it?
The noose is certainly getting tighter and tighter, and Air Canada and its pilots are looking more and more like a deserted island in a sea of change. Is there anyone on their side?
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by Mechanic787 on Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FETCO is in favour of it with some conditions. They want language ensuring that severence pay would be owing only in the event of involuntary termination (fired, as opposed to involuntarily retired. See next paragraph). They want provisions limiting a person's access to some benefits like insurance and disability as they get older. They also want some undetermined age provision on pension (don't know the details) as well as harmonization with CPP/OAS.
They also want some way for a company to force someone to retire if they are no longer capable of performing their function. They referred to that in the context of age but what I think they meant was in terms of medical fitness and competency, exactly like what we do in the aviation industry.
It all seemed reasonable to me looking at it from an employer standpoint.
Rockie wrote:FETCO is in favour of it with some conditions. ... They want provisions limiting a person's access to some benefits like insurance and disability as they get older. They also want some undetermined age provision on pension (don't know the details) as well as harmonization with CPP/OAS.
Those provisions already exist in the Canadian Human Rights Benefits Regulations, although those regulations have not been updated for over 25 years.
The regulations permit age-based differences in insurances, provided that the differences are actuarially-based, not arbitrary. As age increases, insurance cost increases because the risks increase and benefits paid out increase, sometimes substantially, depending the the specific risk insured. Hence the age-based tolerance. What the regulations do not permit is a total denial of insurance at any arbitrary age, or rates that are not connected to the risks associated with the age cohort.
One of the comments that I found interesting was the statement by Madame Folco that some of the suggestions made by the witness from FETCO appeared to go beyond the scope of what is possible to legislate by way of a Private Member's Bill. Does anyone have a better handle on the difference between Private Members' Bills and government-sponsored Bills re what can and cannot be included?
