FDX Alpa pushing age 65 Retro
11-11-2007, 04:19 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
It is unlawful for a labor organization to discriminate against any individual because of his age; to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of such individual's age; or cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual. (Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967)
11-11-2007, 05:25 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 57 Capt
Posts: 141
11-11-2007, 06:24 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 757/767
Posts: 579
The "safety" claim was the only reason ADEA did not come into play years ago. Once the "safety" charade was exposed (and ALPA showed their true thoughts as to the effect of age 65 to safety by eliminating the requirement for one pilot under 60 in the USA), the evidence that this was an economic issue became overwhelming (just look at all the evidence in this and other forums).
There is some doubt whether the legal protection written into the age-65 language will hold up in court. There are numerous lawsuits in play at this time.
Last edited by Roberto; 11-11-2007 at 02:37 PM. Reason: clarity
11-11-2007, 06:29 AM
#17
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Actually, the SFS rep votes the way he feels is right, and his folks usually agree because they are mostly on the same wavelength.
11-11-2007, 06:38 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: FedEx
Posts: 666
Many believe that the only reason ALPA changed their tune was to try to get legal protection, which they got added to the age-65 language (that was already in play before ALPA stepped in). The "safety" issue was the only reason ADEA did not come into play years ago. Once the "safety" charade was exposed (and ALPA showed their duplicity by taking away the one-pilot-under-60 provision in the USA), the evidence that this was an economic issue is overwhelming (just look at all the evidence in this and other forums).
There is some doubt whether the legal protection written into the age-65 language will hold up in court. There are numerous lawsuits in play at this time.
There is some doubt whether the legal protection written into the age-65 language will hold up in court. There are numerous lawsuits in play at this time.
And if anything can derail the change to 65, it is those very lawsuits. Congress will just leave it alone if they can't assure everyone that they will be protected from lawsuits by those that miss the deadline.
How can you sue companies and unions for obeying the law? Age 60 was a law, ALPA didn't write, neither did the airlines. What is the basis for any lawsuit?
If the law changes, and you can't go back to a window seat, who are you going to sue Roberto? Congress? ALPA? UPS? Temasters? Whose fault is it exactly?
You guys haven't thought your arguments through very well and you are right about one thing, you are the guys trying to make it a financial argument, not the pro-60 crowd.
Keep believing in your side though, and keep spending all that money filing lawsuits and supporting APAAD/NAMBLA. Its money well spent by guys who claim that they can't afford to eat anymore when they have to retire.
FJ
11-11-2007, 06:50 AM
#20
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
"There are numerous lawsuits in play at this time."
And more to come I am sure. If I'm a recently retired pilot with no pension and retro rights, and I see pilots protected for retro by my union who have the best pension in the industry, I am sure I would see discrimination and fairness issues in that stance as well. I still can't believe we wasted all that time negotiating the best retirement in the industry when most of our pilots who just turned 60 could care a less. Coffee jugs, 727 S/O panels and hub turns are more attractive to them than enjoying retirement with their loved ones. I just hope those of us under 55 still have the chance that they do to retire at 60 with a full pension. In the meantime I'll just continue to watch them all meet during hub turns, their 4th stripe covered in electrical tape, talking about when Age 60 will change and sharing techniques on how best to stir the coffee for the Capt and F/O. Different strokes indeed...
And more to come I am sure. If I'm a recently retired pilot with no pension and retro rights, and I see pilots protected for retro by my union who have the best pension in the industry, I am sure I would see discrimination and fairness issues in that stance as well. I still can't believe we wasted all that time negotiating the best retirement in the industry when most of our pilots who just turned 60 could care a less. Coffee jugs, 727 S/O panels and hub turns are more attractive to them than enjoying retirement with their loved ones. I just hope those of us under 55 still have the chance that they do to retire at 60 with a full pension. In the meantime I'll just continue to watch them all meet during hub turns, their 4th stripe covered in electrical tape, talking about when Age 60 will change and sharing techniques on how best to stir the coffee for the Capt and F/O. Different strokes indeed...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
