Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Mandatory Retirement Legislation

  1. #1

    Default Mandatory Retirement Legislation

    Just read the latest bulletin from the union saying that they have to represent any flight attendant who was/is forced into retirement at age 65.Just wondered if anybody had any thoughts on the matter.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by turnqueen View Post
    Just read the latest bulletin from the union saying that they have to represent any flight attendant who was/is forced into retirement at age 65.Just wondered if anybody had any thoughts on the matter.
    That's fine. However, as with pilots that want to fly past 60 they should be doing narrow body flying.

  3. #3

    Default

    I guess now instead of looking forward to seniors retiring so that we can move up the ladder, we can start looking at actuarial tables on life expectancies.

    My belief is that the new norm will be 40 years seniority for the good flying. The company can now argue that if FAs are retiring later, they wont need as much pensions...let's cut. They can also argue that as FAs stay longer there will be a higher percentage at the top pay scale which results in higher overall wages...we now all need to take a pay cut to make up the difference.

    It's not the Union's place to represent a few to the detriment of the vast majority. That's not why we're paying dues. If the union is worried about being sued then stay out of the fight. Let AC and those FAs who want to stay forever work out their own solutions. Don't spend our resources in a way that will further erode working conditions.

  4. #4

    Default

    I think the Union is communicating that it is obliged to and is representing the interests of all members, in this case, those with differing views. If you feel only a portion of the membership should be represented, please state who.

    Let the flaming begin.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    YYZ LAS and PDX
    Posts
    253

    Question

    hmmm touchy subject with a lot of angles and grey....

    I think this would be an excellent opportunity for an internal poll to see how the membership truly feels about this subject, I am not sure second-guessing is wise on a subject with these many parameters.....

    I do hope however, that actuarial accountants have been/will be consulted as well as lawyers as CUPE picks its way through this minefield tho'

    'Cause I see both arguments - yes they represent each and all but at what cost?

    Not an easy line in the sand...

  6. #6

    Default

    I don't know if the Union would have any choice but to defend a member's desire to work past 65 if the courts have declared the option a human right.

    I'm hoping to be in a position to leave @ 55 should my finances be in order, or if some wealthy passenger finds me to their liking, I may go sooner!
    Last edited by Puffy_G; September 22, 2010 at 05:06 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    YYZ LAS and PDX
    Posts
    253

    Default

    you better be

  8. #8

    Default

    I totally screwed your reply with my pub nite edit!

  9. #9

    Default

    I thought you were 57 already, but what do I know?

    Good luck with the rich passenger thing. Won't help you for long though, because your wife would kill you shortly thereafter .
    Moe. I miss you my friend. Rest in peace.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Age
    43
    Posts
    749

    Default

    There was a lot of discussion earlier on this thread (some of it was even on topic ), although with 13 pages of posts it is a bit difficult to wade through. There are a number of cases before the CHRT right now that are age-related, including:
    * Charlebois v. Air Canada and Canadian Auto Workers Union (they are meeting Sept 21-24 in Montreal);
    * Adelaide De Julius v. Air Canada;
    * Vilven, Kelly, Thwaites, Green, Evans, Prentice, Barnes, Scott, McDonald, etc. vs. Air Canada and ACPA.

    As is being demonstrated with the CAW and ACPA situations, it would seem that if a union doesn't represent the member then the union appears to become a defendent.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •