|
Here is the latest communique:
Pilots Support Retirement at Age 60: Poll Aug. 10, 2010, 10:29 a.m. EDT TORONTO, ONTARIO, Aug 10, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- An overwhelming majority of Air Canada pilots support retirement at age 60, according to a poll conducted for their union. The survey of more than 1,800 pilots showed that 82 per cent supported retirement at age 60 or even younger. "These survey results demonstrate without question that Air Canada pilots overwhelmingly support the freely negotiated age of retirement in their collective agreement," said Captain Paul Strachan, President of the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA). "The results confirm what our members have repeatedly shown in successive rounds of collective bargaining. They want us to preserve retirement at age 60 with a secure pension that allows them to enjoy the benefits of their years of work performed on behalf of our airline and our passengers." The results come from an on line survey of 1,860 Air Canada pilots conducted June 7 - 23 by The Wilson Center for Public Research, Inc. In the survey, which included almost 60 per cent of all Air Canada pilots, respondents were asked whether they would like a retirement age of 60 years, greater than 60 or less than 60. Pilots were strongly united on the issue, with 78 per cent supporting retirement at age 60 and a further four per cent wanting to retire at a younger age. Even among senior pilots over the age of 50, more than 63 per cent supported retirement at age 60 or earlier, outnumbering those wanting to work past 60 years by more than a two-to-one margin in that sub-group. Only 13 per cent of pilots wanted a retirement age greater than 60 years. Retirement at age 60 is currently set in the pilots' contract and pension plan, which are negotiated with Air Canada by ACPA and ratified by its member pilots in a democratic vote each time their collective agreement is renewed. The negotiated age of retirement is also the subject of an upcoming Federal Court judicial review of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) decision. In August 2009, the CHRT asserted that a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) cannot be justified under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That section of the human rights law says that a practice is not discriminatory if an individual's employment is terminated because he or she has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in similar positions. ACPA asked the Federal Court to review the CHRT decision, arguing that the Tribunal had ignored Supreme Court of Canada decisions which found it acceptable for employers and employees to determine a retirement age through the collective bargaining process. The Federal Court will hear the case November 22 - 25 in Ottawa. "We have a strong, clear mandate from our members to defend their right to collectively bargain their retirement provisions," Captain Strachan said. "We will exercise the mandate pilots have given us by using every legal means at our disposal to defend their democratic rights." The Federal Court's decision could potentially have an impact on the wages and benefits of the Air Canada pilots and thousands of other federally-regulated employees working under collective agreements containing a fixed age of retirement. Full press release here... |
Proof positive of what the MEC thinks is important.........not a wage increase, not indexed pensions...nothing in the WAWCOM survey seems that important........Just how to do it too the older pilots.........Be careful what you wish for...........................What a joke this mec is !!!!!!
|
Red Wine is proven to be good for you. Given the right question, pilots might vote to have red wine served with every hot crew meal. It could be voted on, passed, and published. What are the chances it would happen?
Given the average age of the pilot group, a vote to terminate everyone over 57 might pass. How about everyone with 35 years of service? You cannot put something illegal in a contract, no matter how much certain people would like to. Taking a survey does not change the rules. This nonsense is worthy of South Africa prior to Mandela, or the ravings of Robert Mugabe! |
An overwhelming majority of Air Canada pilots support retirement at age 60, according to a poll conducted for their union. Why are they wasting theirs and everybody elses time with this? |
The poll showed that 82 percent of 60 percent polled or less than half of the pilots had a preference to retire before 60, so the overwhelming majority is actually statistically a minority?
|
Good Evening Engine Fire Left:
If I may ask you a rhetorical type of question and with out using a "hot button" example so I will use a vanilla type of question so as not to offend the sensibilities here. As you have succinctly demonstrated your passion here let us say you have lost a ruling at the C.H.R.T. and constitutionally what are your options? You have the right to apply for redress up to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is everyone's right and the seven senior jurists if they decide to accept the case are the senior intelligentsia of the legal system in our country. They will determine who is right and who is wrong in the definition of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So that being said how about every one take a very deep breath and wait for the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada after November 25 of this year. Personally I have no interest one way or the other but there is nothing you or others can do until this is decided. As this process is started just let it run its course and in due time I am sure you will be able to comment on which ever way the decision goes. Oh by the way that is your right as a citizen of our country..... In closing I might suggest to those who question their union why not get involved in the process as if you do not you are you are being intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt by not getting involved. |
You have the right to apply for redress up to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is everyone's right and the seven senior jurists if they decide to accept the case are the senior intelligentsia of the legal system in our country. They will determine who is right and who is wrong in the definition of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. |
a330pilotcanada
If this were a simple legal dispute with little in the way of potential damage I would agree with you that everybody should just chill out and wait until the end gamut has played out. But this is any simple legal dispute. This entire country has eliminated, or is in the process of eliminating age based mandatory retirement on the grounds of discrimination. Aside from that, ACPA's original argument that age 60 is the "normal" age of retirement has been proven false even if that provision wasn't being eliminated. ICAO has gone to 65 for airline pilots along with the rest of the world removing that rationale from ACPA's meagre toolbox. ACPA's only other remaining arguement about the will of the membership and what has been agreed to in the contract has been addressed more times than I can count. Our contract cannot violate Canadian law even if 100% of the pilots think it should...end of story. This is not rocket science. One year ago ACPA and Air Canada were told in explicit terms by the CHRT (whose official mandate is to decide these matters) that forcing pilots to retire is discriminatory. If everything was frozen in place until ACPA exhausted every last possible measure in attempt to turn back the tide I might also agree with you to patiently wait it out. But that's not happening either. ACPA and Air Canada are continuing the systemic discrimination of pilots every single month, greatly increasing the size of our liability. They can't claim ignorance because the CHRT told us to our face that we were breaking the law. In closing I might suggest to those who question their union why not get involved in the process as if you do not you are you are being intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt by not getting involved This latest press release from them is a classic example of how inane their position is. No reputable polling firm on the planet would interpret one limited question on the WAWCON survey as a mandate to continue down this disastrous course. Furthermore, 100% of the pilots could support discrimination and it would change nothing. This is a matter of law and our opinion, no matter how unanimously anachronistic it may be, does not matter. They should know that. I think this is a case of the MEC beginning to realize that the light at the end of the tunnel is an unstoppable freight train. This press release was nothing more than their attempt to fortify the "we're only doing what the members want" defence for when the s**t hits the fan. Regarding your statement above, we are doing union work by trying to get things back to reality. |
Enginefireleft says ....
ACPA and Air Canada are continuing the systemic discrimination of pilots every single month, greatly increasing the size of our liability. They can't claim ignorance because the CHRT told us to our face that we were breaking the law. This press release was nothing more than their attempt to fortify the "we're only doing what the members want" defence for when the s**t hits the fan. |
Are there any outs? What can ACPA do at this late date to reduce or eliminate the liabilities? Is staying the course to the inevitable costly end in hope of a miracle the only viable battle plan? Maybe asking the FlyPast60 group for some kind of immediate settlement would be the way to go. The ACPA officials might actually gain prestige with this tactic, and disassociate themselves from AC. |
There is an interesting comment on the Avcanada forum made by a moderator.
No, but please note that Mr. Hall will no longer be contributing to these discussions. Did Mr. Hall make a statement that was libelous and Avcanada has banned him or did he quit on his own? |
No. A libelous and untrue accusation was leveled at Ray, and he advised the person who wrote it to retract the accusation. At least one of the moderators over there is hostile to eliminating mandatory retirement and has gotten away with wholesale deletions of posts advocating that position. Maybe in this instance getting rid of Ray was easier than policing the rest of the people.
Like the ACPA forum, rational discussion of this issue at AVCanada is rarely possible, and sometimes not even permitted. That's why I left and will never go back. It is obvious that the only way this will be solved is through legal action and orders from the authorities. Even with that, ACPA is determined to continue the discriminatory practices through some other methods involving penalties to pilots over 60. Those too will have to be addressed, and are being addressed through legal mean. When ACPA and the membership finally wise up to Canadian reality version 2010 then litigation will no longer be required. But until that day ACPA and anybody else stepping over the line will get hammered over the head through legal action. This is easy to avoid, and they bring it down on themselves. |
Cloudcity,
Re post #428 I urge you use care with your choice of interpretation of the statistical data represented by the ACPA release. Please review statistical sample sizes and their meaning prior to passing blanket statements about the validity of data gathered and the size of the sample group. While the statement should have included the sampling error (+/- N%), the sample size seems rather adequate to reflect the union members sentiments. While my statistics textbooks are enjoying their retirement next to my calculus texts, I see no need to further elaborate on the mathematical methodologies required for collecting and interpreting such data. Just ask Minister Clement, speaking of mathematical issues one doesn't fully understand hardly lends itself to a sturdy platform from which to build credibility. Respectfully, On Glideslope |
I think a word of thanks is due to Danny and his moderators for allowing free speech to continue here.
Idle. Edited for grammar |
Agreed. Long may it continue because this is it, the last forum where this can be discussed. When the final rulings have been handed down the need for an open arena to discuss what comes next is absolutely essential.
|
Just ask Minister Clement, speaking of mathematical issues one doesn't fully understand hardly lends itself to a sturdy platform from which to build credibility. Point well taken. My Stats texts are also under a layer of dust in a cardboard box and maybe you've had time to analyse the entire survey and you've perhaps seen the .05 or whatever level of certification of that according to currently accepted statistical standards, but the overall point was that discrimination can't be voted away. And it's all about minorities in the first place, the smallest minority being 1. The Human Rights Act and will protect that 1 individual and they already have. The majority-minority stance is only posturing for whatever reason. They're saying some of us don't want to go past 60 so therefore we do not intend to allow anybody to do that? |
I suspect that the "thought police" at AvCanada banned him.
The moderators there are well known for lacking any intestinal fortitude when the subject makes THEM feel uncomfortable. Thankfully this forum is more enlightened. |
They are having a bit of a "Meltdown" right now over at the AvCanada Air Canada forum.
People repeatedly ask why Raymond hall has been banned, or speculate why, and the posts keep getting deleted or the threads get locked. Even just commenting on the apparent censorship gets your post deleted. AVCANADA • View forum - Air Canada |
I think a word of thanks is due to Danny and his moderators for allowing free speech to continue here. Avcanada used to be a place where one could intelligently discuss these matters without being penalized by those who have taken over control of content. I personally had no problems with posting "ALL " the facts surrounding my legal battle with TCCA over the past years, for that I must thank Joe the owner of the forum. I never posted anything that I could not back up with irrefutable documentation and that protected Avcanada from being harassed for what I said. I am dismayed at how few of my colleagues in aviation understand the meaning of rule of law. |
They are having a bit of a "Meltdown" right now over at the AvCanada Air Canada forum. It is not only the Air Canada forum that is affected, it is any forum where anyone has an opinion or thought that does not pass their thought police. Maybe the Canadian forum here at Pprune will pick up some of Avcanadas rejects? |
Here is the latest post to get axed at AvCanada. I guess they are not too good at handling criticism or competition.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...lipboard02.jpg |
The following is a cut and paste from AVCANADA:
It has come to my attention that AVCANADA has banned Raymond Hall from posting on the Forum. I find this to be VERY disturbing as he was the only person who could accurately comment on the whole age 60 fiasco. I never read anything from him inflammatory. The only inflammatory remarks were made by others. Why has Raymond Hall been banned?[/font] yycflyguy response Really Lost? Nothing inflammatory from Ray? Threatening former colleagues with litigation based on legitimate questions? While I agree that he could accurately comment on the flypast60 perspective he certainly hasn't offered solutions to the questions many have been asking him. Threats of future lawsuits, accusations of defamation, slander and libel, RCMP discrimination investigations against those who he has worked with resulting in the ACPA forum shutting down, meanwhile blindly leading the charge of "discrimination" which will adversely affect every ACPA member with a seniority number lower than those victimized by this unjust system that HE supported and benefited from... until 60. I find this entire "fiasco" inflammatory. R.O.E. from Avcanada Just coming back after a tour at work, I'm astounded at what's going on in here. I don't know much about the Retirement at 60 subject, nor do I particularly care. However, after reviewing the manner in which it has been "discussed," and I use the term loosely, I have wonder if there's something in the water at Air Canada lately? This is a private site, and as such there are clear forum rules for conduct and they must be followed if posting privileges are to be kept. It is that simple. The vitriol, slander, attacks, and general bickering on display in the removed topic(s) are in contravention of those rules - rules to which we have all agreed on upon registration to the site. There is a PM button available, if you really feel the need to say something along those lines, use it. This has generally been the most professional forum on the site, but this last round has certainly not lived up to that billing. To clarify where Avcanada stands on this topic: It is NOT a taboo subject - yet. Joe is very close to giving the whole topic a 6 month holiday. If the subject can be discussed without contravention of the site rules, then it will stay. The CHRT Remedy Ruling thread will stay, but some of the latest posts have been removed as they are not on topic. Any personal attacks, slander, naming of names, or vicious posts will be removed, the users warned accordingly, and they will be given a small vacation. It is not WHAT is being discussed, or who is discussing it as some of you would like to believe, nor is it political censorship, it is simply how it is being discussed that is the issue for Joe and the Moderators. I hope we are clear on this, and if there are any further questions, please feel free to PM me as I'm between fire flaps at the moment and should have time to respond. |
Interesting.. Ray is banned from the ACPA forum, not allowed to attend LEC meetings and now is banned from AVCANADA... Anyone see a constant here?
|
Interesting.. Ray is banned from the ACPA forum, not allowed to attend LEC meetings and now is banned from AVCANADA... Anyone see a constant here? |
As a lawyer, perhaps you could clarify a few things to those mere pilots that don't have law books in their library.
To successfully win a defamation lawsuit do you not need to prove: 1. Malicious intent directed solely at you. 2. Public humiliation. 3. Some sort of financial penalty incurred as a result of the slander. AvCanada is a private forum (contrary to point #2) requiring a membership and there were no comments made towards you that would alter your status as Retired Airline Pilot or Barrister. You chose to post under your real name and that is not required anywhere under the terms of use. Looks like you wouldn't have much of a defamation case but you still brought out the heavy guns. Interesting.. Ray is banned from the ACPA forum, not allowed to attend LEC meetings and now is banned from AVCANADA... Anyone see a constant here? |
AvCanada is not a private forum. You can do a Google search find Raymond Hall or anyone else on the AvCanada Forum.
AvCanada should have deleted the offending posters who slandered Raymond Hall. All he did was remind the offenders that slandering someone is not good and could have consequences. Instead of banning the slanderers, they banned Ray for speaking the truth, and banned me for asking why he was banned. They also deleted posts that called the whole thing censorship. |
It's interesting how threats of loss of bidding privileges, loss of pension benefits, and an intentionally hostile work environment are perfectly acceptable to the ACPA and AvCanada moderators. But advise someone of the possibility of legal action absent a retraction of online libel and you find yourself tossed from the premises.
It's a screwy world we live in. |
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to stay out of this conversation?
:mad: |
dhc2widow
Get lost. Go back and "moderate" your own forum. |
No matter what venue you want to name, Ray Hall has provided nothing but the finest solid unbiased information with regard to the current case of discrimination that is before the courts.
He has given countless hours of his time to provide the most comprehensive summaries of legal information with regard to all aspects of the issue, in response to the questions of a huge number of individuals. In fact, most of the pertinent questions have been repeated ad infinitum and despite that, have always been met with the same factual measured response. In fact, the wealth of factual information is nothing short of amazing. Anybody can attest to that, and where all of the factual information has not been right at hand the response has always been measured and qualified. In anybody's opinion, the value of that kind of resource is immeasurable. The ACPA Forum had the distinct advantage of his generous input but chose to exclude him to the detriment of their own membership. So too with his denied participation in meetings. The first thing you would assume is that the Association would have an obligation to permit their own members to learn the real facts, and the real case. It's their loss unfortunately because there are no doubt a lot of guys out there who have serious questions and who want the real correct straightforward serious answers. But those avenues seem to be systematically closed down. The recent display at AvCanada on their Forum included a string of outright personal slander against Mr. Hall and in response he was banned from that Forum as well, through no fault of his own. If you can't even protect yourself against that kind of activity without incurring retribution yourself, that speaks volumes about what went completely wrong. Sure there were a lot of guys over there who got the afterburners on way too early, and it's a hot topic but where was the response to that. It was however a good move by the Moderators to bring the hammer down on that Forum and those particular threads, but unfortunately the element that was clearly at error was somehow missed. Not to criticize the Moderators. Trying to ride herd on that is like trying to herd a bunch of cats that are on fire. It's not easy and kudos to them for at least diving in there and taking some kind of action. But as anyone who has read the items in question, surely an apology must be due to Mr. Hall for the part of that action that saw him adversely affected for no reason and which only served to reinforce the actions of those who are in it for a brawl. |
As a long time reader, but non-poster here, and a far longer time aviator in Canada and around the world, I am embarrassed, disgusted, and truly appalled at the behavior of pretty much everyone here.
This is professional pilots/lawyers "discussing" a topic? This is what is representing our profession to the public? You people are like a cohort of school-ground children squabbling over a nickel for lunch. There is no wonder why the profession has eroded to the point where it is today if this is representative of the level of intelligence, patience, and communication used to further our cause. To all of you sitting behind your computers posting this childish drivel, please keep you mouths shut when at work, because if I have to knowingly share a flight deck with any one of you it'll push me to early retirement. What has the world come to that this behavior is acceptable? Everyone shouts, nobody listens, and you're all big men when there's no requirement to speak face to face. Truly disgusted. Jim |
Actually I don't see any real problem with a few of us undesirables getting punted off their forum because they still have 30,000 desirables left. It's a shame though because there is not enough discussion about this and it is getting harder and harder to find a venue for it. When this issue first landed at the CHRT I knew very little about it, but made sure I read up. After looking at what is happening in the rest of the country vis-a-vis mandatory retirement, and specifically at the worldwide pilot issue with ICAO's initiative, it was obvious to me this was a done deal. No amount of hot air from the peanut gallery would change it even a tiny bit. I didn't get vocal about it until I saw what ACPA was doing, and I saw nothing but disaster on the horizon if they persisted on this course. Their behavior on this issue from the start has violated their obligation to provide responsible representation to the membership. Their most recent actions flagrantly violate their duty to provide fair representation to all their members. And since August 28th, 2009 they have been violating Canadian law through unabated discrimination of it's pilots over the age of 60. These have resulted in legal action against them and while they of course deny everything, what will they do when these legal actions go against them? Will they admit they were wrong? Oooops...sorry about that. By the way, here's a special assessment against each and every one of you for $??,???, please pay as quickly as you can because after all, we were only doing what you wanted us to do. |
Look up.
royalterrace appears to have been banned. so has Raymond777, and some of his posts removed to boot. |
Gee, I see Pprune has banned a couple of people. I vote we shut down any and all discussion everywhere it may appear. Then we'll just let the various legal processes run their course and figure out a way to live with the results afterwards without benefit of discourse. Nothing anybody says here will effect the outcome anyway. I'll go first. Ciao |
The problem is there's not enough knowledge outside of the few on this forum who have a sound legal grasp of the issues to make any kind of reasonable exchange possible, and the one with the most knowledge gets excluded and you know what? It might just be because this is just too complicated for 99 percent of everybody to understand so the 1 percent with the knowledge base gets punted.
It's like you're at the library and you don't take the big book home because you just don't get what's in it. So once you exclude the guys with the brains this is what you're left with. YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic |
I would guess that Mr Halls behaviour away from the forums could have the owners of Pprune and Avcanada running scared. If I was one of them I certainly wouldn't want to get dragged into court over something that was posted on my site...
|
Scared?
I've informed Uncle Ray that giving the appearances of being a litigious little sausage he can run his own site elsewhere or indemnify PPRuNe. It appears, at first glance, forums have a problem when our chum is around. Now my judgement is that he needs us far more than we need him. It appears to me that sites and threads have difficulties. It also appears to me that those dificulties seem, entirely coincidently, to occur when he is involved in discussions. Not withstanding the American law on 'union house' conversation, 1st amendment rights or even the President's recent moves on the subject I'll work on my established, primitive, animistic basis. If there is wind I see the trees waving and bending. Therefore the trees are making the wind. And thus with Raymond. Regards Rob Oh, and Chuck - enough of the attention seeking. Wrong thread so sod off. |
Scared? I've informed Uncle Ray that giving the appearances of being a litigious little sausage he can run his own site elsewhere or indemnify PPRuNe. It appears, at first glance, forums have a problem when our chum is around. Now my judgement is that he needs us far more than we need him. It appears to me that sites and threads have difficulties. It also appears to me that those dificulties seem, entirely coincidently, to occur when he is involved in discussions. Not withstanding the American law on 'union house' conversation, 1st amendment rights or even the President's recent moves on the subject I'll work on my established, primitive, animistic basis. If there is wind I see the trees waving and bending. Therefore the trees are making the wind. And thus with Raymond. Regards Rob Oh, and Chuck - enough of the attention seeking. Wrong thread so sod off. |
Nah, simply stop visiting you posturing ninny.
Rpob |
Well said Towers - gotta luv Brit humour!
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.