The way I heard it was that the age discrimination cut-off is at age 50. In other words, it legally OK to take away the retiree medical from those of us 49 or younger. So, the 50 and over group is insulated due to the threat of age discrimination type lawsuits against the company.
Challenge
- Thread starter Ken MacTiernan
- Start date
T
The Goose
Guest
This is from the EEOC.gov site:
Age Discrimination in Employment Act
The ADEA's broad ban against age discrimination also specifically prohibits:
statements or specifications in job notices or advertisements of age preference and limitations. An age limit may only be specified in the rare circumstance where age has been proven to be a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ);
discrimination on the basis of age by apprenticeship programs, including joint labor-management apprenticeship programs; and
denial of benefits to older employees. An employer may reduce benefits based on age only if the cost of providing the reduced benefits to older workers is the same as the cost of providing benefits to younger workers.
It would appear as though what is going on would be termed "Reverse Discrimination". While the "letter of the law" would seem to be followed in these TAs, certainly the spirit of the law is not. It's easy to see where lawyers for both the company and union would argue this point based on the letter of the law but I'd not hazard a guess as to the outcome of any judicial review.
More from the EEOC Website:
Age Discrimination
Age discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) less favorably because of his age.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states do have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination.
**It is not illegal for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older.**
**Discrimination can occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are both over 40.**
These two items with asterisks may be the stinkers.
Age Discrimination & Work Situations
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
Age Discrimination & Harassment
It is unlawful to harass a person because of his or her age.
Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person's age. Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
Age Discrimination & Employment Policies/Practices
An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of age, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older and is not based on a reasonable factor other than age.
LINK:
EEOC: Age Discrimination, Unions
Coverage of Labor Unions and Joint Apprenticeship Committees-Labor Unions And Unlawful Practices
A labor union is prohibited from discriminating in its capacity as an employer, in its capacity as a bargaining representative for its members, or as a referral agency or hiring hall.
It is unlawful for a labor union to deny membership to individuals because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (over 40) or disability.
It is unlawful for a labor union to limit, segregate or classify its members based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (over 40) or disability.
It is unlawful for a labor union to refuse to refer a member for employment and/or refuse to represent a member because of the individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (over 40) or disability.
____________________________________________________________________
LINK
EEOC: Age Discrimination
Age Discrimination & Work Situations
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
____________________________________________________________________
Boomer comments:
What I think we are looking at is a violation of the duty of fair representation:
DFR: Railway Labor Act
"...The Supreme Court, in a case involving the Railway Labor Act, held that the Act implicitly expresses the aim of Congress to impose on the exclusive
representative the duty to exercise fairly the power conferred upon it on behalf of all those for whom it acts, without hostile discrimination against them."
Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 323 U.S. 192, 15 LRRM 708 (1944).
In Federal Court in Manhattan, 2003, the TWU asserted that as the owner of the contract: voter ratification was not required to amend the collective bargaining agreement, CBA, beyond the original making, or ratification that did require a membership vote: the Federal Court agreed.
Under the Railway Labor Act, RLA, which covers AMR and the TWU, the only making of a contract is the original agreement which thereafter becomes amendable and never expires.
Under the current CBA, all TWU Maintenance & Related Union Members are covered by the Retiree Medical Insurance Plan and begin coverage at the same time and under the same rates or begin upon entering employment at AA, in a TWU covered position, at the same rates for each individual age.
Under this amendment to the original CBA, the TWU proposes that one part of the same union contract vote to discriminate against the other wholly based on age. Company documents reveal that while the individual prefunding along with the "relevant investment experience" will be refunded to the individual while the company match, and "relevant investment experience", will be retained in the TWU VEBA Trust for payment of future claims by AMR and reducing future AMR expenses. Therefore, one group under the same contract will receive an enhanced economic benefit, wholly based on age, that is deprived the other group under the same contract, wholly based on age: I believe it is in the conversion that the fraud is committed.
The point is that no vote is required and that the pretense of a vote is cover for an amendment to the current CBA that violates both AA EEO Policy, US Govt. EEOC Policy and the Duty of Fair Representation owed all Union Members by the TWU as the exclusive representative.
EEOC: Age Discrimination, Unions
Coverage of Labor Unions and Joint Apprenticeship Committees-Labor Unions And Unlawful Practices
A labor union is prohibited from discriminating in its capacity as an employer, in its capacity as a bargaining representative for its members, or as a referral agency or hiring hall.
It is unlawful for a labor union to deny membership to individuals because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (over 40) or disability.
It is unlawful for a labor union to limit, segregate or classify its members based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (over 40) or disability.
It is unlawful for a labor union to refuse to refer a member for employment and/or refuse to represent a member because of the individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (over 40) or disability.
____________________________________________________________________
LINK
EEOC: Age Discrimination
Age Discrimination & Work Situations
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
____________________________________________________________________
Boomer comments:
What I think we are looking at is a violation of the duty of fair representation:
DFR: Railway Labor Act
"...The Supreme Court, in a case involving the Railway Labor Act, held that the Act implicitly expresses the aim of Congress to impose on the exclusive
representative the duty to exercise fairly the power conferred upon it on behalf of all those for whom it acts, without hostile discrimination against them."
Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 323 U.S. 192, 15 LRRM 708 (1944).
In Federal Court in Manhattan, 2003, the TWU asserted that as the owner of the contract: voter ratification was not required to amend the collective bargaining agreement, CBA, beyond the original making, or ratification that did require a membership vote: the Federal Court agreed.
Under the Railway Labor Act, RLA, which covers AMR and the TWU, the only making of a contract is the original agreement which thereafter becomes amendable and never expires.
Under the current CBA, all TWU Maintenance & Related Union Members are covered by the Retiree Medical Insurance Plan and begin coverage at the same time and under the same rates or begin upon entering employment at AA, in a TWU covered position, at the same rates for each individual age.
Under this amendment to the original CBA, the TWU proposes that one part of the same union contract vote to discriminate against the other wholly based on age. Company documents reveal that while the individual prefunding along with the "relevant investment experience" will be refunded to the individual while the company match, and "relevant investment experience", will be retained in the TWU VEBA Trust for payment of future claims by AMR and reducing future AMR expenses. Therefore, one group under the same contract will receive an enhanced economic benefit, wholly based on age, that is deprived the other group under the same contract, wholly based on age: I believe it is in the conversion that the fraud is committed.
The point is that no vote is required and that the pretense of a vote is cover for an amendment to the current CBA that violates both AA EEO Policy, US Govt. EEOC Policy and the Duty of Fair Representation owed all Union Members by the TWU as the exclusive representative.
PlayTheOdds
Veteran
Boy you guys just kill me as to what you guys think the profession killer is. You think a strike killed the profession or scab unions that crossed your lines? The day the profession began dying is when the AMT designation came to be recognized as a valid term for an aircraft mechanic. The fact that you guys think there is a difference between an AMT and SRP is ludicrous in itself. As long as companies are allowed to grab someone off the street and give them a 40 hr Gen-Fam course and call them an AMT this profession is going to die.
Can unions save the profession? Yes they could but it will never happen because unions including its members are just as greedy and corrupt as the company management teams they are fighting. AMT's are taking A&P jobs and union pilots are flying aircraft oversees taking jobs from the AMT's and A&P's. How does this happen. Because all you guys are concerned about is your own workgroups and to hell with the rest. Unionism has failed because its members have failed to up hold the whole idea of unionism.
So you guys go ahead and suck up this TA and Be Happy that this TA is not killing the profession. It is the non A&P ticket holders that work on aircraft under the AMT term and the unions that are actually nonunion that fly your jobs overseas.
The day that non-A&P AMT’s signoff logbooks is when the profession is dead.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
I'm not to sure about the age discrimination some here are trying to add to argument against the prefunding issue. As the prefunding is written today age has always been a factor in entering the program as well as having to meet fee requirements if you were a late bloomer to the program. Also with the late bloomers they are required to pay a higher rate, so has it been unfair all along and now the flavor of the day is to call for age discrimination with it's proposed elimination? There is as well language that speaks to the elimination of the prefunding program and I'm not so sure I will miss it. I don't see allot of value in it anyway and it would become a cost neutral item for me due to the sweeteners added for the elimination of the prefunding. Unless I'm missing something here, I don't see this as a huge concern for those under 50 now...
T
The Goose
Guest
Read the age discrimination law on the EEOC.gov pages. You will find what is presented in this TA is rather illegal. My reference to this on the TWU 514 website was deleted within a half hour of its posting (and comments disabled for that item) so there's quite obviously something to it.
How dare I post an anti-TA fact on the TWU 514 website?
What you're missing is simplicity itself - if you continue to defend the company position of cost neutrality and the hosing of a group whose only identifying factor is their age through a union that supposedly "represents" its membership (in which you are an officer), how could you possibly describe yourself as being fair minded and a supporter of equality as a union is supposed to be?
We could probably get an equivalent deal straight from the company without paying dues to what, by all appearances, seems to be a wholly owned subsidiary of said company, the TWU.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #52
<_< ------ Plane and simple!------- If this thing goes through as written, sounds like there is pretty good grounds for one hell'va lawsuit to me! 
----- Know anyone in the ACLU?
----- Know anyone in the ACLU?
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #53
<_< ------ But you've missed the point! No one is discriminating against you for being "too old", but for being "too young"! As long as you have one group of people being treated differently than another, based soley on age, that my friend is discriminatory.
T
The Goose
Guest
Like most everything else, it's only illegal after a judge says it is.<_< ------ Plane and simple!------- If this thing goes through as written, sounds like there is pretty good grounds for one hell'va lawsuit to me!
You can bet the TWU won't be of any assistance since they're pushing this.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #55
<_< ------ No, but they could be named as parties in a suit!
T
The Goose
Guest
That's their problem and certainly not ours. Hopefully, both the company and their pet union will hang high after the (perhaps) upcoming discrimination and DFR lawsuits.<_< ------ No, but they could be named as parties in a suit!
OgieJFK
Advanced
- May 28, 2010
- 243
- 129
Exactly. I had to explain that to a friend that is part of the "too young" crowd.
Goose...I love ya.
I'd love to see them try to explain it a court of law.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
Goose, I went and viewed your previous post where you point to external law for age discrimination and noticed within your post that you called what was happening as "reverse discrimination" and not following the spirit of the law. Slinging external law about short of hard facts will gain you little ground my friend....
Before I posted on this topic I used a different approach and read the current language of the contract referring to retirement prefunding and I noticed there is already plan Termination clauses within the language and I thought that the enhancements they have made won't hurt as bad as you think...I still am waiting on an explanation from the Union on this topic before I cast my vote.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Would be nice to know details as to how ObamaCare might effect the needs pertaining health insurance for future retired individuals. We know legislation was passed, we legislation might still be repealed. But it would still be nice to be informed.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #60
<_< ------ Highspeed, Caution? That's good, but this issue of pensions is just one of many you should be "concerned" about!
