Repeal of Mandatory Retirement Bill Passes Second Reading

[Morry Bund]

The point. And only point I was making, is that a true dialogue requires a willingness from both sides to address the concerns of the other.

So, here is part of the most recent dialogue on one side. What chance do you think we have of establishing a mutual dialogue, given these predispositions:

- - - - - - - -
Nope, not about greed. $130,000 pension but not satisfied to fall back to the EMB. Not willing to compromise at all. Still wants #1,

un-beliveable, greed

The selfish motivation for most of these guys is transparent to just about everyone except the face they see in the mirror.

Guess what?? Its my turn now. Time for you to go, don't let the door hit you on the way out! Enjoy Turkey! There's a joke there somewhere!

[Rockie]

My point to him was simple. If you really want dialogue? Do something about it. Otherwise it is just empty words.

On the old ACPA forum lots of pro 60+ people tried to discuss this issue in a calm fashion as well as attempting to turn down the hostile rhetoric from pro-mandatory retirement pilots. The forum moderators made no attempt to keep the conversation civil despite requests to do so by some members, and in fact participated in the personal attacks themselves. Eventually anybody willing to discuss the 60+ side was driven away. Finally the vitriol reached a level where ACPA was forced to shut down the forum for fear of legal liability. Since ACPA doesn't provide any information themselves on the issue except the occasionally rosy report on how well their legal fight is going, there was then no discussion at all on this very important issue.

Next came the ACP forum. A few people again tried to discuss the issue calmly, but again were chased off by the hostility. But now ACPA's name is not officially attached to this forum. The moderators, if they exist, make absolutely no attempt to tone down the rhetoric. The naked hatred and vile personal attacks on the new forum have reached heights never seen on the old forum that bore ACPA's name.

I have never heard your voice on either forum calling for calm dialogue Brick Head. If you are serious about the need for dialogue let's hear you say it where it counts. I would like to read your arguments on the ACP forum calling for the kind of dialogue you say you would support. Put your money where your mouth is and take up the banner on the ACP forum and with ACPA.

Do that and I might take you seriously. But until then forget it.

[MackTheKnife]

So if Ray wants meaningful dialogue? Shit or get off the pot. I am not saying it would be reciprocated. I am saying complaining about it while doing nothing to address it, is hypocritical.

Now, Brick Head, exactly what would you propose that I do? I go to my own base meeting and sit quietly in the back without saying a word whereupon the MEC Chair interrupts the Base meeting, stops the web cast, embarrasses me in front of everyone by publicly chastising me for attending, and then unceremoniously turfs me out, to the applause of a number of members, without allowing me to say a word in response.

A few months later I approach the MEC Chair at the Winnipeg Retirement Dinner (where I graciously declined to accept my plaque and make a speech, when I was fully entitled to) and the MEC Chair tells me in a loud voice, in front of the guests, "F*** OFF!" Not exactly great dialogue.

You should listen to what Rockie has to say, especially his point above that this was going to happen even if there was no Fly Past 60 Coalition. Your post clearly suggests that we, those who are telling the union that its actions are illegal, are to blame for the lack of dialogue.

Exactly what would you propose that I do, in order to, as you put it, "shit or get off the pot?"

So all of a sudden Brickhead finally sees the locomotive bearing directly down on ACPA and he is suddenly clamoring for " meaningful " dialogue.


" For you have power in danger's hour
Our freedom to defend, Sir!
Though long the fight we know that right
Will triumph in the end, Sir!"

Pedal to the metal and bury the dinosaur !

[Understated]

Dialogue? Here is how the Age 60 Committee started its dialogue in 2006:

"Reviewing the list of pilots who have shown interest in continuing beyond age 60, reveals that there is nothing particularly special about them. For the most part, they are in the more ethereal section of our Seniority List, enjoying the best remuneration and perhaps the best working conditions afforded by our Collective Agreement. They got to their positions, not because of any particular anointment – but simply because others left in front of them when it was their time to move into the next phase of their lives."

Straight of a human rights textbook on ageism. Have things changed since 2006? Yes. ACPA is more polarized now than it ever was, and it maintains the absurd and illegal proposition that it represents only the majority of its members, not the minority. How can there be any meaningful dialogue so long as the union's stance, both in substance and in form, is that it can pit one group of its members against another, based upon flagrant age discrimination?

[accumulous]

Dialogue? Here is how the Age 60 Committee started its dialogue in 2006:

Quote:
"Reviewing the list of pilots who have shown interest in continuing beyond age 60, reveals that there is nothing particularly special about them. For the most part, they are in the more ethereal section of our Seniority List, enjoying the best remuneration and perhaps the best working conditions afforded by our Collective Agreement. They got to their positions, not because of any particular anointment – but simply because others left in front of them when it was their time to move into the next phase of their lives."

A telling statement indeed.

Very much akin to a Rally Bulletin at a Klan meeting.

If you have to brand your motives on your forehead with a hot iron before you drag your butt into a Human Rights Tribunal witness box, well there it is.

One more example of how the ‘brain trust’ for the senior pilot extermination program pooched the entire exercise right out of the gate.

So highly obviously penned by someone not of the ‘ethereal’ set, which in and of itself is a definitive Colt 45 ka-blammo through the holster and straight through the foot.

Brilliant, boys, just brilliant.

The CHRC must be coming unglued about now.

[bandaid]

I have removed some posts and returned this thread. Please keep you posts respectful and on topic and within the guide lines of the rules of this forum. Thanks in advance.

[Rockie]

LOTS of discussion recently on the ACP forum regarding (alleged) changes pending to our pension plan. All of it centred on taking action to save whatever we can out of it. DC, modified conditions for DB, pay groupings (status pay lite?), and others. Everything but the most obvious solution and one that's been staring them square in the face for years now. Let people work longer to increase their pensionable years and take the load off the existing pension. It is so obvious I'm embarrassed nobody at ACPA can see it through their pathological desire to continue discriminating against their own members.

Instead we have the YYZ LEC Chairman admit that ACPA is still lobbying the government to include modifications to their intended law prohibiting mandatory retirement for federal workers. Could it be they want companies with a pension plan excluded perhaps?

How do they square their mindless mission to save mandatory retirement with their attempts to save the pension?

[Understated]

Instead we have the YYZ LEC Chairman admit that ACPA is still lobbying the government to include modifications to their intended law prohibiting mandatory retirement for federal workers. Could it be they want companies with a pension plan excluded...?

Maybe they haven't heard that there is no-one home in Ottawa, and that there won't be anyone home there for over a month.

I suppose that they can always dream. Maybe they can send a delegation to Moose-Mountain Saskatechewa to ensure that the only Member of the Pariamentary Committee that agreed with what they are suggesting gets re-elected.

The futilty of their suggestion that organizations with pension plans should be exempted has over a dozen faults. First, the proposal violates the very provision of the Charter that they failed to persuade the Tribunal and the Court to use as a means of denying their argument.

Second, their proposal will have an immense adverse impact on the very people that the repeal is designed to protect--and there are numerous categories of those people. Finally, a group that wants to ensure that its senior members don't have their pensions reduced from $140,000 per year to $130,000 per year by reason of the change can't possibly carry much weight with MPs who have thousands of constituents below the poverty line.

Lobbying Ottawa? Bad money after good.

[rudder]

LOTS of discussion recently on the ACP forum regarding (alleged) changes pending to our pension plan. All of it centred on taking action to save whatever we can out of it. DC, modified conditions for DB, pay groupings (status pay lite?), and others.

New-hires excluded from DB Plan. LCC B767 operation.

Looks like B-scale. Smells like B-scale.

[Rockie]

B scale for sure. But defending against B scale requires solidarity and we have none. Despite lots of words to the contrary guys will see an immediate raise for themselves and vote accordingly. Hope I'm wrong, but the company knows we are as fractured as any group can be and they had ACPA's unwitting assistance to make it that way.

DB pension plan for people here now, but only until you're 60 and then you're out. End result fewer and fewer people contributing to the pension, but as many or more (since we're living longer) drawing from it. Doesn't take a genius to see how that's going to turn out in twenty years or so.

DC pension for new hires, but only until they're 60 and then they're out looking for work.

This union that is supposedly working for the benefit of its members astounds me.

[rudder]

When all the union is looking for is a 50% + 1 ratification result, then this is the type of TA that you get. According to the MEC Bulletin, it meets the survey priorities. I wonder if a widebody LCC operation and reduced pension benefits for new-hires was what the members expected. It also provokes an interesting question - what is a 767 pilot worth?