CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
accumulous
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by accumulous »

"No clear legislative direction"

It's called the Human Rights Act. Start at page 1 and go through to the end.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Brick Head
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by Brick Head »

accumulous wrote:"No clear legislative direction"

It's called the Human Rights Act. Start at page 1 and go through to the end.
Exactly my point. Where does the CHRA end, and the labor code begin?

Who gets what, when, is decided by the human rights act?

Really? Take an honest look at all seniority based systems. Deferred compensation systems. Look into the labor code to see who gets to decide who gets what, when.

If you really understand the issues? The broader issues? Not just the single minded issue of the CHRA. Step back and think.

I don't proclaim to know where the line is. Just that I know there is a line and it will be found through this process, or through legislation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by Raymond Hall »

Brick Head wrote:Where does the CHRA end, and the labor code begin? ...
I don't proclaim to know where the line is. Just that I know there is a line and it will be found through this process, or through legislation.
I do profess to know where the line is. Simple. The Canadian Human Rights Act trumps the Canada Labour Code. Case closed.

I don't think I need to provide you with all the legal citations, but let me say that the Supreme Court of Canada has articulated quite clearly, on more than one occasion, that Human Rights law is "quasi-constitutional."

Check out http://www.canlii.org . Search any of the relevant terms. This is not about fairness. It is about law.
---------- ADS -----------
 
yycflyguy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2786
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:18 am

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by yycflyguy »

This is not about fairness. It is about law.
Well thanks for that little gem.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TyrellCorp
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Why Why Zed

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by TyrellCorp »

Raymond Hall wrote:This is not about fairness. It is about law.
That sums the whole thing up very well doesn't it? Thank you indeed for that little gem.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Nothing is worse than having an itch you can never scratch"
lawndart
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 8:47 pm

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by lawndart »

All other arguments aside, I find it sad that the ability of someone to continue working past their expected age of retirement in a relatively easy and well remunerated position is being called a human right. On the same page as not losing one's job for being a certain race or gender or sexual orientation. [color=#0000FF]Edited - Widow[/color] cheapens what could have been a positive, constructive effort to change case law in Canada.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Widow on Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Allegation removed
accumulous
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by accumulous »

"All other arguments aside, I find it sad that the ability of someone to continue working past their expected age of retirement in a relatively easy and well remunerated position is being called a human right"

You should pick up the phone and call the HRC and explain that proposition to them. Better still take a sign with that on it and go sit in the gallery in the House of Commons.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by Raymond Hall »

TyrellCorp wrote:
Raymond Hall wrote:This is not about fairness. It is about law.
That sums the whole thing up very well doesn't it? Thank you indeed for that little gem.
It does indeed sum it up, for the simple reason that it makes the parties to the proceeding irrelevant. Coincidentally, it makes their motives irrelevant as well. Totally irrelevant. Regardless of the abuse heaped upon the messengers. What logic is there in fighting the laws of Parliament, unless your intention is to make lawyers wealthy at your own expense?

I have been suggesting since 2006 that both Air Canada and ACPA should embrace the law, rather than fighting it, while at the same time taking steps to minimize the adverse consequences of the law on those most adversely affected. Namely, take some of the windfall gain received from increasing pension contributions, decreased pension outflows, and decreased training costs (estimated by Air Canada's own witnesses to be over $400,000 per year for every delayed retirement of one year) to decrease the financial penalties for those who would like to retire early, so as to essentially neutralize the adverse impact, while complying with the law.

You know how that suggestion was received!
---------- ADS -----------
 
joebloggs
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 8:25 am
Location: neverland

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by joebloggs »

Raymond Hall wrote:
TyrellCorp wrote:
Raymond Hall wrote:This is not about fairness. It is about law.
That sums the whole thing up very well doesn't it? Thank you indeed for that little gem.


I have been suggesting since 2006 that both Air Canada and ACPA should embrace the law, rather than fighting it, while at the same time taking steps to minimize the adverse consequences of the law on those most adversely affected. Namely, take some of the windfall gain received from increasing pension contributions, decreased pension outflows, and decreased training costs (estimated by Air Canada's own witnesses to be over $400,000 per year for every delayed retirement of one year) to decrease the financial penalties for those who would like to retire early, so as to essentially neutralize the adverse impact, while complying with the law.

You know how that suggestion was received!

It's not about decreased financial penalties for those who want to retire early. It's the fact that people want the choice to be Widebody captains for the last eight years of their careers before they reach 60. At this rate, new hires won't see larger aircraft until much, much later in their careers. All this at the expense of those who have had golden careers(ie widebody captains in their early 40's, pre ccaa wages and working conditions). All of the above seem to forget that they became widebody captains when they did because those before them went at 60, and I am sure that they were holding the door for them as they left. In this case it's not human rights, but greed if you ask me. Anyways, all of this will probably fall on deaf ears, so...rant over.
---------- ADS -----------
 
600RVR
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:06 am

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by 600RVR »

Maybe Raymond and all his followers can give those who are entering avation and those who want to move up in avation in Canada some career advice. They are H-ll bent on delaying the careers of hundreds of pilots in avation in Canada. They have no clue on the state of avation in Canada, and the fact that Air Canada is one of the main engines for driving movement within the avation industry in Canada. Everyone moves up because of Air Canada, Just look at 2005 - 2008 it was crazy. They never experienced this because they were all hired in their early 20's, and had a career that we can only dream of. Ray had 36 wonderfull years at Air Canada (hired at age 24). The whole while their movement at Air Canada was dependent on retirements at age 60 before them. They didn't care about this until they were close to retirement. Call it what you will, I know what I call it. Now they will reply to this post with legal jargon and alot of blah blah blah. But lets call a spade a spade. I really would like to know what these guys have to say to all the young avatiors in Canada who dream of a job to fly jets and can only dream to have a career as these guys did, which will now never happen till much much later in their careers.

Call it what it is
600RVR
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by 600RVR on Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
UNS1C
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 5:45 am

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by UNS1C »

well said 600.......after 17 years of flying I am truly sick of the drama in this industry....LOL
---------- ADS -----------
 
TyrellCorp
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Why Why Zed

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by TyrellCorp »

Well said 600RVR. You echoed my thoughts. Wow, Raymond started his career at 24? What a fantastic ride these guys must have had. To have experienced the golden years of aviation at such an early age. They certainly hit the jackpot. No wonder they don't want it to end. If they weren't so blinded by their own motivations they just might be able to see the train wreck they are causing for guys / gals like you and I. We who have had to fight tooth and nail to claw our way here in our mid to late 30s with the hope of finally getting a financial break only to be denied by those that have had it so good for so long. In fact I am even thinking about leaving Air Canada to try elsewhere to fix my unenviable financial situation. The close to 10 years it took me to get to AC came at a price. I would have been happy to have had half as good a career as Raymond did and with that in mind it's hard for me to see this as anything other than greed.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Nothing is worse than having an itch you can never scratch"
JayDee
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:49 am

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by JayDee »

TyrellCorp wrote: In fact I am even thinking about leaving Air Canada to try elsewhere to fix my unenviable financial situation.
Since when has the Aviation industry in general, Air Canada, ACPA, the Fly Past 60 coalition or even Ms. Muffets tuffet ever been responsible for guaranteeing you a career? You take what you get in this business. When I got hired I was just glad I HAD A JOB, I had made it. I felt like I had just won the lottery. I rode the lumps and bumps and dodged the curves for my entire career only to be soon unceremoniously booted out the door long before I am ready simply because I have crossed some imaginary outdated line in the sand.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by JayDee on Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
JayDee
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:49 am

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by JayDee »

600RVR wrote:Maybe Raymond and all his followers can give those who are entering avation and those who want to move up in avation in Canada some career advice. They are H-ll bent on delaying the careers of hundreds of pilots in avation in Canada. They have no clue on the state of avation in Canada, and the fact that Air Canada is one of the main engines for driving movement within the avation industry in Canada. Everyone moves up because of Air Canada, Just look at 2005 - 2008 it was crazy. They never experienced this because they were all hired in their early 20's, and had a career that we can only dream of. Ray had 36 wonderfull years at Air Canada (hired at age 24). The whole while their movement at Air Canada was dependent on retirements at age 60 before them. They didn't care about this until they were close to retirement. Call it what you will, I know what I call it. Now they will reply to this post with legal jargon and alot of blah blah blah. But lets call a spade a spade. I really would like to know what these guys have to say to all the young avatiors in Canada who dream of a job to fly jets and can only dream to have a career as these guys did, which will now never happen till much much later in their careers.

Call it what it is
600RVR

http://www.iespell.com/download.php

and it's free !
---------- ADS -----------
 
Brick Head
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by Brick Head »

Wow,

That was a jaw dropper. You might want to do some editing.

You realize you probably just said that to a guy making formula minus 42%????????? Has that ever happened to you? Why is he an ass for thinking he should be entitled to the same as everyone else? Isn't the term "entitled," in this sense meant for those who feel they deserve more than everyone else?

Who in this situation has less than everyone else? Who in this situation has less than everyone before them? Who is seeking more than what those had before them? Who wants to make sure this happens equitably? Anyone?

Think about it because your post has a stench of an attitude steeped in self entitlement. It is that very attitude that makes your younger peers, I stress the word peer here, ..........it makes your younger peers want to wretch with frustration.

I work with them all the time. Some are younger without families. Most aren't. Most are going into debt. Some heavily. Trying to make it the other side of the PG. Something that was not explained to them very well when they took the job. Something most at this airline don't understand. For some a prolonged stay (this situation making it longer) in the PG may mean financial disaster. For most it likely means a longer period where their families go without, and a longer period of digging out of their debt after.

Please edit your absolute disregard for your junior peers lot in life. Telling them to get stuffed. That you don't care what they have to endure as a result of change, when your pension is 2 1/2 times what their wage is at the moment...............I don't have a word to describe my absolute dismay at your post. It paints an image of someone completely out of touch with what is going on within their own group.

We are all equal. That is what this whole mess is about. Right? No one is more special. No one is entitled to more than the other.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Brick Head on Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:32 am, edited 5 times in total.
HavaJava
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 6:23 am
Location: anywhere but here

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by HavaJava »

:smt038 :smt038 :smt038

You summed it up perfectly Brickhead! Of course, the flypast60 group will never see it this way.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
circlingfor69
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 5:59 pm
Location: In a dark room

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by circlingfor69 »

Very well said BH!!!

I don't know how Ray Hall et al can sleep at night. There truly is no words to describe the complete disregard these guys have for the majority of pilots at AC who don't want this to happen.

I would also like to pose a question to Ray Hall: Would you consider it a win if the end result of this fiasco is that all future pilots at AC can continue to 65 (or whatever retirement age, if any!!), but all pilots already retired may not return to AC, at least not at their previous seniority?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by circlingfor69 on Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
One feathered,the other on fire!
yycflyguy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2786
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:18 am

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by yycflyguy »

Brick Head wrote:Wow,

That was a jaw dropper. You might want to do some editing.

You realize you probably just said that to a guy making formula minus 42%????????? Has that ever happened to you? Why is he an ass for thinking he should be entitled to the same as everyone else? Isn't the term "entitled," in this sense meant for those who feel they deserve more than everyone else?

Who in this situation has less than everyone else? Who in this situation has less than everyone before them? Who is seeking more than what those had before them? Who wants to make sure this happens equitably? Anyone?

Think about it because your post has a stench of an attitude steeped in self entitlement. It is that very attitude that makes your younger peers, I stress the word peer here, ..........it makes your younger peers want to wretch with frustration.

I work with them all the time. Some are younger without families. Most aren't. Most are going into debt. Some heavily. Trying to make it the other side of the PG. Something that was not explained to them very well when they took the job. Something most at this airline don't understand. For some a prolonged stay (this situation making it longer) in the PG may mean financial disaster. For most it likely means a longer period where their families go without, and a longer period of digging out of their debt after.

Please edit your absolute disregard for your junior peers lot in life. Telling them to get stuffed. That you don't care what they have to endure as a result of change, when your pension is 2 1/2 times what their wage is at the moment...............I don't have a word to describe my absolute dismay at your post. It paints an image of someone completely out of touch with what is going on within their own group.

We are all equal. That is what this whole mess is about. Right? No one is more special. No one is entitled to more than the other.
Post of the year.

Last year when the TA passed, I put out overseas resumes. Why? I could not financially survive if I was forced back into the Position Group if CR shrank us to profitability. I was one of the lucky ones. I spent only a short time in it but the preceding 27 months on flat pay took 2 years to recover from, financially.

We still have lots of guys out on SLOA because they are stuck in PG with no plans to come back til they can move out of it. It really is the same thing as being furloughed, only it is a self-imposed furlough.

We are really screwed heading into negotiations when our Negots Committee is made up of 777 CA's. It has been so long that they have been either subjected to junior pay and work or even flown with someone experiencing it that they really are out of touch with the new reality of the airline. Sad.
---------- ADS -----------
 
WF9F
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:21 am

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by WF9F »

Great post BH.

JayDee,
You talk about my sense of entitlement. You over 60 crowd take that to a whole new level.
Do me a favor, please don't shed crocodile tears for me and my pension because i won't get the max. Stop the crap that we are doing this all for you guys, you poor souls that were hired in our late 30's and early 40's. You let me worry about my pension and mind your own business. Don't use me to justify your own self centered motives.
We all know why you guys are doing this and by the way, IMO, it is a done deal. We should be focusing our efforts on making staying past 60 a big financial nothing for you guys.(IE; after 60 you pay your own GDIP, and so forth) Many things we can do in this regard.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TyrellCorp
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Why Why Zed

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by TyrellCorp »

Thanks Brick Head. Your post as usual is right on the money. The irony of JayDee telling me that I have an entitlement complex is truly astounding and goes to show just how out of touch the fly past 60 group really is.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Nothing is worse than having an itch you can never scratch"
accumulous
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by accumulous »

EVERY Airline in North America except Air Canada has the option to fly past 60. JAZZ since 2002. WestJet since ???. EVERY airline in the United States. EVERY other carrier in Canada including Transport Canada. So EVERY airline and piloting operation in North America is out of touch with reality then???
---------- ADS -----------
 
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by Lost in Saigon »

The leaders of ACPA have done a very good job selling this Age 60 stuff to the junior pilots. They all think they are going to be irreparably harmed if even one pilot goes past age 60.

The fact is most of the junior pilots were hired in their 30's, and even early 40's, and will NEVER see a full pension at Air Canada. The junior pilots are the ones who need age 65 the most. They are the ones that can gain the most with their pensions if they work a few extra years.

Before any of you comment, you should go to the ACPA website, run the pension estimator for your 20-25 years of service, and then back date your age 5 years, (to simulate working 5 extra years), and run the pension estimator again. Don't forget to bump up the amount for your best 5 years because you WILL be able to hold something a little more senior by then.

Compare the amounts and you will see that 5 years makes a big difference for the pension you will collect for the rest of your life.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Lost in Saigon on Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bcflyer
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by bcflyer »

accumulous wrote:EVERY Airline in North America except Air Canada has the option to fly past 60. JAZZ since 2002. WestJet since ???. EVERY airline in the United States. EVERY other carrier in Canada including Transport Canada. So EVERY airline and piloting operation in North America is out of touch with reality then???
The U.S. pilots really had no choice but to work longer as alot of their pensions were dismantled when they filed for chapter 13 (?) Pilots that had flown for 25-30yrs suddenly had no pension. Everyone needs to work longer to get ANY pension. Plus I don't remember guys that were already retired coming back once the age was changed....

Westjet has always retired at 65 so everyone based their advancement on that to start with. As well they have no pension, no real seniority list for bidding schedules etc and only one type of aircraft. Not a big deal there.

I also don't recall any former Jazz pilots coming back online when the age was changed (I certainly didn't move down the list when it happened..) As well the difference in quality of life from the top RJ captain to a Dash 8 F/O isn't nearly as dramatic as from a 777 Captain to and EMB F/O Pretty hard to compare the two airlines at all when it comes to this.
---------- ADS -----------
 
bcflyer
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by bcflyer »

Lost in Saigon wrote:The leaders of ACPA have done a very good job selling this Age 60 stuff to the junior pilots. They all think they are going to be irreparably harmed if even one pilot goes past age 60.

The fact is most of the junior pilots were hired in their 30's, and even early 40's, and will NEVER see a full pension at Air Canada. The junior pilots are the ones who need age 65 the most. They are the ones that can gain the most with their pensions if they work a few extra years.

Before any of you comment, you should go to the ACPA website, run the pension estimator for your 20-25 years of service, and then back date your age 5 years, (to simulate working 5 extra years), and run the pension estimator again.

Compare the amounts and you will see that 5 years makes a big difference for the pension you will collect for the rest of your life.
I was hired at 38 knowing full well that I would never receive a full pension. I've run the numbers for my pension. Guess what? I'm ok with it! I've made other investments along the way (like alot of my fellow junior pilots) and will be just fine at retirement thank you. I don't NEED 65. Why in the world would I want to work LONGER than I have to? The ability to retire at 60 is a priviledge, not some kind of human rights violation. What sooooo many of you olds fart don't realize is the AC pension is not the be all end all for us poor souls hired in our 30's or 40's.
You may be in for a surprise come next negotiations. Protecting the pension is NOT the number one thing on the minds of alot of junior guys...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: CHRT Remedy Ruling?

Post by Lost in Saigon »

Yes, the ability to retire at 60 is a privilege. No one is taking that privilege away from you. Just don't interfere with my RIGHT to work past 60, if I want to.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”